Here, you are urged and encouraged to run your mouths about something important.

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Wow! Obama-appointed Judge blocks the NDAA

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), signed into law by Barack Obama on New Year's Eve has been the source of quite a bit of alarm as it allows the military to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely, without charge. It's one area where the Ron Pauliens are rightfully concerned.

Quite amazingly, an Obama-appointed judge in Manhattan has blocked the law until Congress clears up the gray areas. Also worthy of note is that one of the plaintiffs who sued Obama in this case is a very left wing writer, Christopher Hedges.

Via Bloomberg:
Opponents of a U.S. law they claim may subject them to indefinite military detention for activities including news reporting and political activism persuaded a federal judge to temporarily block the measure.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan yesterday ruled in favor of a group of writers and activists who sued President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the Defense Department, claiming a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law Dec. 31, puts them in fear that they could be arrested and held by U.S. armed forces.

The complaint was filed Jan. 13 by a group including former New York Times reporter Christopher Hedges. The plaintiffs contend a section of the law allows for detention of citizens and permanent residents taken into custody in the U.S. on “suspicion of providing substantial support” to people engaged in hostilities against the U.S., such as al-Qaeda.

“The statute at issue places the public at undue risk of having their speech chilled for the purported protection from al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and ‘associated forces’ - i.e., ‘foreign terrorist organizations,’” Forrest said in an opinion yesterday. “The vagueness of Section 1021 does not allow the average citizen, or even the government itself, to understand with the type of definiteness to which our citizens are entitled, or what conduct comes within its scope.”
Another interesting aspect was that the government didn't put up any type of defense:
The plaintiffs claim Section 1021 is vague and can be read to authorize their detention based on speech and associations that are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Hedges and two other plaintiffs testified in a hearing before Forrest in March, the judge said. A fourth plaintiff submitted a sworn declaration. The government put on no evidence, Forrest said.
The government doesn't appear to be either willing or able to adequately explain how the provision prevents average American citizens from being detained:
In her opinion, Forrest said the government declined to say that the activities of Hedges and the other defendants don’t fall under the provision. Forrest held a hearing in March at which government lawyers didn’t call any witnesses or present evidence, according to the judge. The government did cross- examine the plaintiffs who testified and submitted legal arguments.
Regardless of your ideology, the NDAA, as it is currently written, allows for the detention of political prisoners, which should never happen in the U.S. One way to help solve this problem would be to adequately identify the real enemies of America, which still has not been done.

h/t Drudge 

No comments:

Accuracy in Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
Big Government
Big Journalism
Doug Ross
Flopping Aces
Fox Nation
Fox News
Free Republic
The Hill
Hope for America
Hot Air
Hot Air Pundit
Jawa Report
Jihad Watch
Michelle Malkin
Naked Emperor News
National Review
New Zeal Blog
News Real
Pajamas Media
Red State
Right Wing News
Say Anything
Stop Islamization of America
Verum Serum
Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
Watts Up With That
Web Today
Weekly Standard
World Net Daily

Blog Archive