Forum Post: Did a Judge Just Block Indefinite Detention From the NDDA?
Posted 11 years ago on May 16, 2012, 8:29 p.m. EST by TrevorMnemonic
(5827)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
"A US federal judge has temporarily blocked a section of the controversial National Defense Authorization Act that allows for the indefinite military detention of US citizens.
In a 68-page ruling, US District Judge Katherine Forrest agreed on Wednesday that the statute failed to “pass constitutional muster” because its language could be interpreted quite broadly and eventually be used to suppress political dissent.
"There is a strong public interest in protecting rights guaranteed by the First Amendment," Forrest wrote, according to CourtHouseNews.Com. "There is also a strong public interest in ensuring that due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment are protected by ensuring that ordinary citizens are able to understand the scope of conduct that could subject them to indefinite military detention."
The Manhattan judge therefore ruled in favor of a group of writers and activists who sued US officials, including President Barack Obama. They claimed that the act, which was signed into law on December 31, makes them fear possible arrest by US armed forces."
RT just released this and said "More details to come."
Hopefully it turns out to be legit and these unconstitutional provisions will be removed permanently. Congress and Barry O should be ashamed for passing these provisions. Sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA are unAmerican.
RT has updated this link 2 times since I've posted it. Be sure to continue checking on this story for the full details.
http://rt.com/usa/news/ndaa-judge-blocked-detention-437/
“This legislation authorizes the military to indefinitely detain individuals without charge or trial, including the detention of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. In short, what this bill does is it takes a wrecking ball to the United States Constitution and gives enormous power to the government or the state. I want friends on both sides of the aisle to understand this; we are giving the state more power over individuals with this bill. It’s the wrong direction.”
“This bill (the NDAA) authorizes permanent warfare anywhere in the world. It gives the president unchecked power to pursue war. It diminishes the role of this Congress. The founders saw Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which places in the hands of Congress the war power, as essential to a check and balance against the executive abuse of power. This legislation diminishes Congress' role in that regard.” - Dennis Kucinich
Momentum against NDAA is in play. Sign this petition tonight, shaming Congress into ending this this thing.
http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/ndaa_tmrw/?akid=1353.1608224.52V8ou&rd=1&t=2
Thank you. I signed and added to the letter:
As it stands you are defiying the constitution. Support the people. Do not trash the USA.
This is a very good day! I can't tell enough people how great this is.
I've been feeling pretty stellar myself because of this good news. Makes me feel like we have a better chance at winning a lot of these battles. Sometimes I wish I would have been a judge so I could be one of those renegade liberal judges that Fox News always complains about.
The part I like the most is that the Govt. still tries to argue that it's necessary.
It's pathetic and scary that they continue to tell us how invading our privacy and stealing our rights is necessary.
O-bomb-ya 2012! I don't care who is in power as long as they are a Democrat!
You're another democrat that's proud of being stupid.ignorant people can learn but stupid is forever.
I'm not stupid! I'm smarter than average! I know better than poor people, and I need to make their life decisions for them!
When you do stuff like this... you tarnish the image of people who do not support Obama for legitimate reasons. Please don't resort to tactics like this. I know what you're trying to do.
You don't need to go out of your way and create accounts to harass people.
Please, just stick to facts and argue your case legitimately. It's pretty easy to do. It's common knowledge that both parties work for the 1% and war. Just ask Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, and all the rich guys on Wall Street making a killing on corporate contracts with the military for the wars.
You and I have cross swords before on this, But I'm with you this time. This guy is either completely insincere and trolling, of he is a complete moron.
I upvoted.
Nah, you're right. What I am doing is pretty despicable. I have a personal vendetta against Shooz, though. He's not immune to throwing low blows himself.
Yeah I've been blamed for Bush before and been told how all the wars are really Ralph Nader's fault.
Which is all hilarious because it all makes as much sense as when Bill O'Reilly says Obama is a socialist or when people say he's a secret Muslim. It's bogus.
I was 13 in the year 2000. Like I said... stick to logic and reason. Logic and reason never fail.
True, I like logic and reason.... But sometimes, it's a bunch of fun to get someone back.
I agree that there is little to no evidence O-bomb-ya is a secret muslim, but I don't really understand how it is all that much of a stretch to say he is a socialist.... I am serious here.
Services are said to be socialized when private goods are sold by the public sector. Private goods are excludable and non-rivalrous, so there is either a limited supply of them, or it would be easy to prevent theft.
By that standard then Romney is a socialist as are all presidents before Obama.
well if we are are going to be so lax with our definitions then it would not be that far off the mark to call Bush a fascist, though to call any president any derogatory one word description is hyperbolic, it is also a form of passing the buck. America fights wars insidiously because the American people love profit over principles. Blaming the president is just AWAY FOR US TO deflect criticism from our selves and the values we as a nation hold. We have been fighting wars longer than any sitting president has been in office. I believe it is our capitalistic nature that creates the need for war and socialism. But of course we don't want to go there so we will blame the player before we critique the game.
[Removed]
thank you, bathouse barry aka barry soetoro,aka barck hussein obama
Excellent! Thank you Trevor, for post and link.
Looks like it is. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-security-lawsuitbre84f1hs-20120516,0,2381226.story
I hope this is true.
Great news !! Thanx for posting. Even if it gets repealed, just the fact that our government would try to pass such a law, sends up a red flag.
Bipartisan support is scary. It seems to always happen when deregulating Wall Street and stealing our rights with crap like the NDAA, the patriot act, and the JOBS act that didn't create a single job.
OMG - I am starting to really like the news that I have been hearing today.
Front page of the Huffington post. It mentions the lawsuit that Hedges brought against Obama in the article. It's a pretty good read.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/16/homeland-battlefield-act-unconstitutional_n_1522587.html
Hedges is on point for the most part
Haha. I love it. These stupid politicians forget we have courts.
That's why the corps are trying to buy off judges all the time.
Guess they missed one.
I hope it holds up. Every congressman that voted yes and the president should lose their role in government for supporting these provisions.
I agree. Peaceful protestors can go to jail for doing absolutely nothing but exercising their first amendment rights, but the rich and powerful can violate the constitution and have absolutely nothing happen to them. I think they should all go to jail, and all the minor drug offenders should be released.
"If they policed the banks as much as they police the parks, we wouldnt be in this mess"
No doubt.
I would give you a dozen or more votes for that comment if I could.
thanks.
Thank you.
But if drugs offenders weren't in prison anymore than how would private for profit prisons make their money?
Human needs not corporate greed. Drop the debt and legalize weed. - Flobots
Children from low income families. That's how it's happening in PA. That's how they're going to fill their private prisons. That and with occupiers. According to one of the trolls on here that's where I'm gonna end up. Maybe I'll see you there.
Isn't it interesting that Obama was the one who appointed her? Guess he knew something.....
Yeah, he knew something
Obama Demanded Language To Arrest You
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmDe3FrOXfc
Yet he appointed the judge who is stopping it. Not everything is so black and white. Judicial appointments matter. Romney would have signed NDAA, too, but he will also stack the court with those who would NOT put a stop to it.
He may have appointed her, but he didn't know how she would rule or even if she'd sit in front of this case. On the other hand, he DID know that HE asked the Armed Services Committee to include the language to indefinitely detain US Citizens without charge, hearing or trial. HE DID THAT. The Armed Services Committee wanted to omit that language. Do you think this video is altered and that Sen.Levin didn't say that on the senate floor?
Obama Demanded Language To Arrest You
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmDe3FrOXfc
Loyalty is one thing man ................ Blind Faith another
If what you suggest is true (which is a stretch), than Obama is no better than bush for stacking the courts with judges that will rule in his favor.
And let's not forget about the American citizens killed in Yemen on the basis of "we said they were bad."
No evidence has been provided for their crimes and that's why the ACLU is suing Obama for committing war crimes
ACLU files law suit against the Obama administration for war crimes... not the first time either.
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/al-aulaqi-v-obama
"I'm not disgusted at President Obama personally. It's President Obama's policies on civil liberties and national security issues I'm disgusted by." - ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0610/ACLU_chief_disgusted_with_Obama.html
"The Obama administration’s adoption of the stonewalling tactics and opaque policies of the Bush administration flies in the face of the president’s stated desire to restore the rule of law. ... when these photos do see the light of day, the outrage will focus not only on the commission of torture by the Bush administration but on the Obama administration's complicity in covering them up." - ACLU
http://www.aclu.org/2009/05/13/obama-administration-reverses-promise-to-release-torture-photos
But hey... when they work for the Obama 2012 campaign... it's really easy for them to overlook the whole picture.
[Removed]
Isn't it interesting that Obama was the one who appointed her? Guess he knew something......
I will give him cred on an awesome appointment... but I still think his signing for the NDAA as well as signing off on war crimes are worthy of an impeachment.
Even Bush signed for the GI bill. Doesn't make up for the crap.
“This bill (the NDAA) authorizes permanent warfare anywhere in the world. It gives the president unchecked power to pursue war. It diminishes the role of this Congress. The founders saw Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which places in the hands of Congress the war power, as essential to a check and balance against the executive abuse of power. This legislation diminishes Congress' role in that regard.”
“Our children deserve a world without end, not a war without end. Our children deserve a world where they know the government will protect them, that it is not going to rule over them by invading their very thoughts and going, as the PATRIOT Act does, going into their banking records or into their educational records. We have to keep the government out of people's lives and stop the government from getting more into war which gives the government more control over people. This is the time we take a stand for the Constitution and a stand for a government which is smaller when it comes on matters of war.” - Dennis Kucinich
ACLU files law suit against the Obama administration for war crimes... not the first time either.
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/al-aulaqi-v-obama
"I'm not disgusted at President Obama personally. It's President Obama's policies on civil liberties and national security issues I'm disgusted by." - ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0610/ACLU_chief_disgusted_with_Obama.html
"The Obama administration’s adoption of the stonewalling tactics and opaque policies of the Bush administration flies in the face of the president’s stated desire to restore the rule of law. ... when these photos do see the light of day, the outrage will focus not only on the commission of torture by the Bush administration but on the Obama administration's complicity in covering them up." - ACLU
Essentially suppressing information that could lead to war crimes charges against Bush and members of his administration.
http://www.aclu.org/2009/05/13/obama-administration-reverses-promise-to-release-torture-photos
So I still stand by my comment.
Here's my reps email reply, when I contacted him about NDAA:
Tue 12/20/2011 2:39 PM
Thank you for contacting me with concerns regarding the National Defense Authorization Act and the detainee provisions. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.
Armed Services Committee Member Mac Thornberry (R-TX) firmly clarified and dismissed myths and misinformation about the National Defense Authorization Act and the detainee provisions in the conference report. Thornberry's thorough blog post on the matter is included below:
"There has been a fair amount of inaccurate information and misunderstanding about the final version of the Defense Authorization Bill (NDAA), which passed the House yesterday. The bill provides pay and benefits for our troops, buys the weapons and equipment they need, and funds research to help meet future threats. It is an important bill to pass because it helps carry out the first job of the federal government – our national defense. There are some misunderstandings related to two provisions involving the detention of Al Qaeda terrorists. Over the past decade, the United States has detained members of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated groups when they have been captured on the battlefield. In fact, some were released and had to be recaptured or killed because they went back to killing American soldiers. Both the Bush and Obama Administrations have detained those individuals who are members of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated groups, and the courts have affirmed the ability to do so under the U.S. Constitution. But, the specific authorization for detention was inferred from the Authorization to Use Military Force; it was not explicitly stated in statute. The NDAA explicitly states that authority in statute, on the exact same terms as the courts have recognized it with one exception. The bill adds explicit protections for American citizens – even American citizens who have joined Al Qaeda to take up arms against the United States.
Some people have argued that these provisions allow a President to detain American citizens within the United States indefinitely if he brands them a terrorist. That is not true. Here are two specific provisions from the bill.
SUBTITLE D. SEC. 1021. (p. 655) (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
SUBTITLE D. SEC. 1022. (p. 657) (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.— (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
Some of the misunderstanding arose because there have been several versions of the bill language and previous versions did not have all of the protections that were in the final bill. Other misunderstanding came because some groups do not agree with current law. Some of them believe that all Al Qaeda terrorists should have the full constitutional rights of an American citizen, including the right to consult a lawyer, even on the battlefield. Those debates will continue. But the purpose of this bill was to put into statute the current legal standard agreed upon by two administrations and the courts. That does not mean that Congress should not continue to examine this issue. There may be legislative improvements that need to be made. We must protect Americans from Al Qaeda and other terrorists and at the same time protect our individual rights and liberties under the Constitution. We can do both."
Thank you for contacting my office regarding my vote on this piece of legislation. For information on my future votes, I encourage you to visit my website http://www.house.gov/bartlett where you can sign up to receive e-mail updates regarding my legislative activity. It is a privilege to serve you in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Sincerely, Roscoe Bartlett Member of Congress
This sounded like BS when I read it, and still reads like spin.
that response email exactly spin.
I trust Dennis Kucinich and this is what he said about the NDAA
“This bill authorizes permanent warfare anywhere in the world. It gives the president unchecked power to pursue war. It diminishes the role of this Congress. The founders saw Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which places in the hands of Congress the war power, as essential to a check and balance against the executive abuse of power. This legislation diminishes Congress' role in that regard.”
“This legislation authorizes the military to indefinitely detain individuals without charge or trial, including the detention of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. In short, what this bill does is it takes a wrecking ball to the United States Constitution and gives enormous power to the government or the state. I want friends on both sides of the aisle to understand this; we are giving the state more power over individuals with this bill. It’s the wrong direction.”
“Our children deserve a world without end, not a war without end. Our children deserve a world where they know the government will protect them, that it is not going to rule over them by invading their very thoughts and going, as the PATRIOT Act does, going into their banking records or into their educational records. We have to keep the government out of people's lives and stop the government from getting more into war which gives the government more control over people. This is the time we take a stand for the Constitution and a stand for a government which is smaller when it comes on matters of war.”
Even NDAA advocate Lindsey Graham said "No! You Don't Get A Lawyer!" as well as "This bill defines the homeland as the battlefield!"
Kucinich is da man! A real straight shooter. Yeah, I knew it was spin but I wanted everyone to see what BS congress tell it's constituents.
My congressman put out some crap like that too. I had to call Kucinich's office to confirm what I had been reading, and they referenced me to this press release on his website.
I'm hoping for a Kucinich 2016. I don't think it will happen though because of how discouraging his first attempt was. And the fact that he lost his re-election for congress. Just shows how terrible the media and money in politics are. And redistricting.
With the money that's in politics - elections are more like auctions and the media is like the auctioneers. I always liked Kucinich though. I hope he hasn't got too discouraged and threw in the towel. He is one of the few people I can say we need in government.
Jesus that guy looks like he is a hundred and ten years old but apparently has not lost his ability to bullshit and sell the american people down the river. I wonder if he actually wrote it?
Yeah, I think he's 94 and he's running again too but will probably have a hard go of it because of the D's redistricting. He's the only R rep in the state and he votes with the R's on everything - I won't miss him but I'm concerned about who will be my next rep. See their trying to push this Agenda 21 thing here, but they ran into some resistance.
http://www.examiner.com/article/maryland-county-charts-a-path-out-of-agenda-21
That's about the same thing I got from Mikulski and Cardin. They are all so full of shit.
[Removed]