Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
April 26, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

Terrorizing the Vulnerable

Truthdig Bazaar more items

Email this item Print this item

Truthdigger of the Week: U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest

Posted on May 18, 2012
James Cridland (CC BY 2.0)

A decade of war on terror has created a culture of deference in which U.S. officials may restrict American civil liberties in the name of national security. This Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest bravely challenged that culture.

President Obama is a former constitutional lawyer and sworn defender of the U.S. Constitution. If anyone knows about due process in the treatment of criminal suspects, he does. But on New Year’s Eve of 2011 he signed into law a bill that empowered the government to indefinitely detain without charge or trial anyone it suspects of providing “substantial support” to terrorists, including U.S. citizens, anywhere in the world.

Within weeks of the signing, Truthdig columnist Chris Hedges and a small group of journalists, activists and scholars filed a lawsuit against Obama and the U.S. government. Attorney Bruce Afran led the group to challenge Section 1021 of the law, which they argued restricted their First Amendment rights by making them question whether or not they could be jailed for associating with terrorist groups during the course of their work.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held a preliminary hearing in late March. At that time Forrest, appointed to the position by President Obama, said she was “extremely skeptical” that the plaintiffs could demonstrate that the law curtailed their freedom of speech. She also made it clear she was compelled by a previous Supreme Court decision to “tread carefully” with cases concerning national security.

The case she referred to was Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project of 2010. At that time, the Supreme Court declared “material support” of terrorist groups, defined as giving “training,” “expert advice or assistance,” “service” and “personnel” to groups designated as terrorists, to be illegal. The decision had high-profile critics, including former President Jimmy Carter, who said:


Square, Site wide
“The ‘material support law’—which is aimed at putting an end to terrorism—actually threatens our work and the work of many other peacemaking organizations that must interact directly with groups that have engaged in violence. The vague language of the law leaves us wondering if we will be prosecuted for our work to promote peace and freedom.”

Taken in conjunction with the indefinite detention clause of the NDAA, that decision puts more than just activists and journalists at risk. High-ranking officials such as Howard Dean, Fran Townsend, Wesley Clark, Ed Rendell, Rudy Giuliani, Tom Ridge could be jailed indefinitely for their associations with the Iranian dissident group MeK, which has been designated a terrorist group by the State Department for the last 15 years. The severity of the consequences of charges that could be brought against those officials may explain why they are lobbying to have MeK removed from the State Department’s terrorist list.

In a reversal of her initial reservations, on May 16, Forrest struck the indefinite detention part of the bill down, saying that language referring to “substantial support” of terrorism and individuals or groups deemed to be “associated forces” of terrorist organizations was too vague to ensure the law would not be used to silence American citizens whose speech could be interpreted as sympathetic to such groups. When asked to guarantee that such arrests would not be made, the government lawyer involved in the case five times said he could not answer.

Forrest rightly asked how the American public could be expected to follow the law if the government itself could not say whether such arrests would be made.

As Hedges said in a recent interview with “Democracy Now!”: “What makes [the ruling] so monumental is that, finally, we have a federal judge who stands up for the rule of law.” The federal government will most likely appeal Forrest’s decision, and it is possible that the Obama administration will find a judge who could reverse the injunction. We will have to wait and see. But right now, we want to recognize Forrest for resisting the pressures of the age and of the official institutions everywhere around her, and for standing up for the rights of ordinary Americans. And so we honor her as our Truthdigger of the Week.

Read an extensive report on Forrest’s ruling here.

—Alexander Reed Kelly

Lockerdome Below Article
Get a book from one of our contributors in the Truthdig Bazaar.

Related Entries

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every day.

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By gerard, May 19, 2012 at 10:09 am Link to this comment

I’d like Judge Forrest to know that I personally (along with millions of others) thank you from the bottom of my patriotic heart.

Report this
EmileZ's avatar

By EmileZ, May 19, 2012 at 1:30 am Link to this comment

Hell Yeah!!!

Report this

By themanyareone, May 18, 2012 at 9:06 pm Link to this comment

Astonishing! Hard to believe, when we consider the
absence of justice and Constitutional protection that
has become the fare of a wrecked and demolished legal
system. Excellent choice for this recognition. While I
remain a bit skeptical as to what went on behind the
scenes and the ultimate aim of the powers-that-be who
will do anything and everything to not let this stand,
we all need to be deeply thankful that there is at
least ONE person in power who can still think straight
and rule right.

Report this
agelbert's avatar

By agelbert, May 18, 2012 at 6:44 pm Link to this comment

A judge actually defending the 1st and 5th amendments! What used to be routine for judges has now become a courageous act.

My hat is off to this brave woman.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest. Mark that name down as a future candidate for president.

Report this
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook