Indefinite Military Detention of Citizens Ruled Unconstitutional
23 replies, posted
[quote]The Obama administration's efforts to enshrine sweeping 9/11-era rollbacks of civil liberties and constitutional rights as federal law hit a serious roadblock yesterday, as a federal judge struck down clauses of the National Defense Authorization Act as unconstitutional.
[b]The offending section of the NDAA, signed by Obama on New Year's Eve last year, grants the government the power to put citizens in military detention indefinitely and without the usual recourse to civil courts.[/b]
Chris Hedges, along with other writers and activists including Daniel Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky, challenged the law soon after in a federal lawsuit.
They argued that the phrasing of the law, which [b]allows for the detention of anyone who has "substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners," is so broad that in infringes on their own first-amendment rights.[/b]
Judge Katherine Forrest, a recent Obama appointee to the federal bench, was clearly sympathetic, and granted a preliminary injunction of the offending sections of the law.
The parties were back in court for further arguments last month for further arguments, but by Forrest's close questioning of administration lawyers, it was clear she still wasn't buying the government's argument.
That impression was confirmed yesterday with Forrest's 112-page ruling, which resoundingly dismisses the law as unconstitutional:
The Government did not--and does not--generally agree or anywhere argue that activities protected by the First Amendment could not subject an individual to indefinite military detention under § 1021(b)(2). The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides for greater protection: it prohibits Congress from passing any law abridging speech and associational rights. To the extent that § 1021(b)(2) purports to encompass protected First Amendment activities, it is unconstitutionally overbroad.
First amendment rights aren't the only constitutional problem with the law, Forrest continues:
The due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment require that an individual understand what conduct might subject him or her to criminal or civil penalties. Here, the stakes get no higher: indefinite military detention--potential detention during a war on terrorism that is not expected to end in the foreseeable future, if ever. The Constitution requires specificity--and that specificity is absent from § 1021(b)(2).
Forrest is particularly dismissive of the government's argument that the issue is none of the court's business, and that at most, courts can consider individual habeas corpus petitions from already-detained prisoners.
That argument is without merit and, indeed, dangerous.... If only habeas review is available to those detained under § 1021(b)(2), even U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, core constitutional rights available in criminal matters would simply be eliminated. No court can accept this proposition and adhere truthfully to its oath.
Speaking with the Voice Wednesday night, Hedges said he is happy with the ruling.
[b]"I'm elated," he said. "This judge is amazing. She had the courage to do the right thing in an age when most judges write long opinions about why they can't do the right thing."[/b]
There's good reason to temper the elation, however. The government is almost certain to appeal the ruling. Indeed, the administration already has appealed the temporary injunction granted in May.
"That's all right," Hedges said Wednsday. "If they appeal, we'll fight them, and we'll keep fighting them, and we'll fight them until we win."
[b]You can read Judge Forrest's ruling here:[/b]
[url=http://www.scribd.com/doc/105774648/NDAA-Ruling]NDAA Ruling[/url][/quote]
[url=http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/09/obamas_ndaa_law.php]Source[/url]
First SH thread; hopefully I did it right, and didn't copy another one. I looked and didn't see one, though. Figured Facepunch would be interested in this.
No shit it's unconstitutional, but it's great that they're doing something about it.
Awesome
Great to hear. I know Obama expressed concerns about the NDAA because of this provision and its not like he could do a line-item veto so he could either veto the entire legislation (which would cut funding for the military) or sign it. Obviously signing it is better if a federal judge can later nullify that provision.
Glad to see someone is defending our freedom.
Thank God. And who is Frank Pinto? One of the more interesting author names I've seen in a while.
[quote]The Obama administration's efforts to enshrine sweeping 9/11-era rollbacks of civil liberties and constitutional rights as federal law hit a serious roadblock yesterday[/quote]
Oh for fuck's sake... Let's just ignore the fact that they stuck this in the bill with a lot of good stuff.
Well regardless, this is really good news. Glad to hear it.
Hahah that article is so ridiculously biased
Great news, but damn that article is just too neutral!
This means less than a fucking teenage breakup until it has passed through the supreme court.
And, I'm sure it will.
Back during WWII we threw Americans into internment camps, took their money/land/etc away from them even though they hadn't been convicted of anything. Funny thing is, the same wasn't done to German Americans on the east coast.
Now, so many decades later, we are doing the same thing. Nonwhite, non Christian terrorists get tortured and sent to prison without due process, while white Christian terrorists(Tim McVeigh, doctor killing clinic bombers, etc) get trials and lawyers and everything.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;37656976]Back during WWII we threw Americans into internment camps, took their money/land/etc away from them even though they hadn't been convicted of anything. Funny thing is, the same wasn't done to German Americans on the east coast.
Now, so many decades later, we are doing the same thing. Nonwhite, non Christian terrorists get tortured and sent to prison without due process, while white Christian terrorists(Tim McVeigh, doctor killing clinic bombers, etc) get trials and lawyers and everything.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.[/QUOTE]
That's the Fed for ya.
[QUOTE=x_xPwntx_x;37655094][url=http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/09/obamas_ndaa_law.php]Source[/url]
First SH thread; hopefully I did it right, and didn't copy another one. I looked and didn't see one, though. Figured Facepunch would be interested in this.[/QUOTE]
You did it right. I hope to see more threads from you. <3
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;37656976]Back during WWII we threw Americans into internment camps, took their money/land/etc away from them even though they hadn't been convicted of anything. Funny thing is, the same wasn't done to German Americans on the east coast.
Now, so many decades later, we are doing the same thing. Nonwhite, non Christian terrorists get tortured and sent to prison without due process, while white Christian terrorists(Tim McVeigh, doctor killing clinic bombers, etc) get trials and lawyers and everything.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.[/QUOTE]
Welcome to the world of the American Federal Government, may I take your coat?
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;37657534]Welcome to the world of the American Federal Government, [B]may I take your coat?[/B][/QUOTE]
[B]SLIPPERY SLOPE[/B]
[editline]14th September 2012[/editline]
what will you try to take next??
[QUOTE=teh pirate;37657549][B]SLIPPERY SLOPE[/B]
[editline]14th September 2012[/editline]
what will you try to take next??[/QUOTE]
Excuse me sir, we have to take your underewear and test it for explosive residue. Oh, and have your anus ready for inspeciton as well. :v:
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;37658242]Excuse me sir, we have to take your underewear and test it for explosive residue. Oh, and have your anus ready for inspeciton as well. :v:[/QUOTE]
i didn't know you worked for the TSA
Well, that's good to hear, but it should have never been signed in the first place.
Neat, I wonder how Alex Jones will react to this
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;37658296]Well, that's good to hear, but it should have never been signed in the first place.[/QUOTE]
The only thing Republicans and Democrats agree on is eroding the civil liberties of American citizens.
[QUOTE=x_xPwntx_x;37655094][url=http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/09/obamas_ndaa_law.php]Source[/url]
First SH thread; hopefully I did it right, and didn't copy another one. I looked and didn't see one, though. Figured Facepunch would be interested in this.[/QUOTE]
Almost right. Needs 'less headlines, more sensationalism.'
Something like "Indefinite Military Detention of Citizens Ruled Unconstitutional; Judge declared enemy combatant, is detained indefinitely."
[QUOTE=teh pirate;37657549][B]SLIPPERY SLOPE[/B]
[editline]14th September 2012[/editline]
what will you try to take next??[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/a8MBg.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Starpluck;37655230]Great to hear. I know Obama expressed concerns about the NDAA because of this provision and its not like he could do a line-item veto so he could either veto the entire legislation (which would cut funding for the military) or sign it. Obviously signing it is better if a federal judge can later nullify that provision.[/QUOTE] Plus iirc the bill had enough support to override a veto regardless.
[QUOTE=Fahrenheit;37659247]Almost right. Needs 'less headlines, more sensationalism.'
Something like "Indefinite Military Detention of Citizens Ruled Unconstitutional; Judge declared enemy combatant, is detained indefinitely."[/QUOTE]
I was trying to think of one but since it was my first thread I was super excited to just get it out ASAP, haha.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.