Judge Blocks Portion of NDAA

0

A federal judge Wednesday issued an injunction against a National Defense Authorization Act provision that grants the military the right to detain anyone it suspects of involvement in terrorism. U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest ruled in favor of a group of plaintiffs, including Truthdig columnist Chris Hedges, who filed a lawsuit against the legislation within weeks of President Obama signing it.

Hedges was joined in the suit by linguist, author and dissident Noam Chomsky, Pentagon whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg and other high-profile activists, scholars and politicians.#Link

Military Detention Law Blocked by New York Judge

A federal judge temporarily blocked enforcement of a part of the National Defense Authorization Act that opponents claim could subject them to indefinite military detention for activities including news reporting and political activism.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan today 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 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.”

Enforcement Blocked

Forrest’s order prevents enforcement of the provision of the statute pending further order of the court or an amendment to the statute by Congress.

Ellen Davis, a spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara in Manhattan, declined to comment on the ruling.

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.

Forrest, an Obama appointee who has served on the Manhattan federal court since October, rejected the government’s arguments that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue over the law and that it merely reaffirmed provisions in an earlier law, the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which was passed in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Plaintiffs’ Activities

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.

“The government was given a number of opportunities at the hearing and in its briefs to state unambiguously that the type of expressive and associational activities engaged in by plaintiffs — or others — are not within Section 1021,” Forrest said. “It did not. This court therefore must credit the chilling impact on First Amendment rights as reasonable — and real.”

Hedges, who testified he has been a foreign news correspondent for 20 years, said he has reported on 17 groups that are on a State Department list of terrorist groups. Hedges testified that after the law was passed, he changed his dealings with groups he had reported on, Forrest said.

“I think the ruling was not only correct, but courageous and important,” Hedges said in a telephone interview yesterday.#Link

 


Federal court enjoins NDAA

An Obama-appointed judge rules its indefinite detention provisions likely violate the 1st and 5th Amendments

A federal district judge today, the newly-appointed Katherine Forrest of the Southern District of New York, issued an amazing ruling: one which preliminarily enjoins enforcement of the highly controversial indefinite provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act, enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Obama last December. This afternoon’s ruling came as part of a lawsuit brought by seven dissident plaintiffs — including Chris Hedges, Dan Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky, and Brigitta Jonsdottir — alleging that the NDAA violates ”both their free speech and associational rights guaranteed by the First Amendment as well as due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

The ruling was a sweeping victory for the plaintiffs, as it rejected each of the Obama DOJ’s three arguments: (1) because none of the plaintiffs has yet been indefinitely detained, they lack “standing” to challenge the statute; (2) even if they have standing, the lack of imminent enforcement against them renders injunctive relief unnecessary; and (3) the NDAA creates no new detention powers beyond what the 2001 AUMF already provides.

As for the DOJ’s first argument — lack of standing — the court found that the plaintiffs are already suffering substantial injury from the reasonable fear that they could be indefinitely detained under section 1021 of the NDAA as a result of their constitutionally protected activities. As the court explained (h/t Charles Michael):

In support of their motion, Plaintiffs assert that § 1021 already has impacted their associational and expressive activities–and would continue to impact them, and that § 1021 is vague to such an  extent that it provokes fear that certain of their associational and expressive activities could subject them to indefinite or prolonged military detention.

The court found that the plaintiffs have “shown an actual fear that their expressive and associational activities” could subject them to indefinite detention under the law,and “each of them has put forward uncontroverted evidence of concrete — non-hypothetical — ways in which the presence of the legislation has already impacted those expressive and associational activities” (as but one example, Hedges presented evidence that his “prior journalistic activities relating to certain organizations such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban” proves “he has a realistic fear that those activities will subject him to detention under § 1021″). Thus, concluded the court, these plaintiffs have the right to challenge the constitutionality of the statute notwithstanding the fact that they have not yet been detained under it; that’s because its broad, menacing detention powers are already harming them and the exercise of their constitutional rights.

Significantly, the court here repeatedly told the DOJ that it could preclude standing for the plaintiffs if they were willing to state clearly that none of the journalistic and free speech conduct that the plaintiffs engage in could subject them to indefinite detention. But the Government refused to make any such representation. Thus, concluded the court, “plaintiffs have stated a more than plausible claim that the statute inappropriately encroaches on their rights under the First Amendment.”

Independently, the court found that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the NDAA violates their Fifth Amendment due process rights because the statute is so vague that it is virtually impossible to know what conduct could subject one to indefinite detention. Specifically, the court focused on the NDAA’s authorization to indefinitely detain not only Al Qaeda members, but also members of so-called “associated forces” and/or anyone who “substantially supports” such forces, and noted:

Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on their vagueness challenge. The terms upon which they focused at the hearing relate to who is a “covered person.” In that regard, plaintiffs took issue with the lack of definition and clarity regarding who constitutes an “associated forces,” and what it means to “substantially” or “directly” “support” such forces or, al-Qaeda or the Taliban. . . .

The Government was unable to define precisely what ”direct” or “substantial” “support” means. . . .Thus, an individual could run the risk of substantially supporting or directly supporting an associated force without even being aware that he or she was doing so.

Perhaps most importantly, the court categorically rejected the central defense of this odious bill from the Obama administration and its defenders: namely, that it did nothing more than the 2001 AUMF already did and thus did not really expand the Government’s power of indefinite detention. The court cited three reasons why the NDAA clearly expands the Government’s detention power over the 2001 AUMF (all of which I previously cited when denouncing this bill). 

First, “by its terms, the AUMF is tied directly and only to those involved in the events of 9/11,” whereas the NDAA “has a non-specific definition of ‘covered person’ that reaches beyond those involved in the 9/11 attacks by its very terms.” Second, “the individuals or groups at issue in the AUMF are also more specific than those at issue in § 1021″ of the NDAA; that’s because the AUMF covered those “directly involved in the 9/11 attacks while those in § 1021 [of the NDAA] are specific groups and ‘associated forces’.” Moreover, “the Government has not provided a concrete, cognizable set of organizations or individuals that constitute ‘associated forces,’ lending further indefiniteness to § 1021.” Third, the AUMF is much more specific about how one is guilty of “supporting” the covered Terrorist groups, while the NDAA is incredibly broad and un-specific in that regard, thus leading the court to believe that even legitimate activities could subject a person to indefinite detention.

The court also decisively rejected the argument that President Obama’s signing statement – expressing limits on how he intends to exercise the NDAA’s detention powers — solves any of these problems. That’s because, said the court, the signing statement “does not state that § 1021 of the NDAA will not be applied to otherwise-protected First Amendment speech nor does it give concrete definitions to the vague terms used in the statute.”

The court concluded by taking note of what is indeed the extraordinary nature of her ruling, but explained it this way:

This Court is acutely aware that preliminarily enjoining an act of Congress must be done with great caution. However, it is the responsibility of our judicial system to protect the public from acts of Congress which infringe upon constitutional rights.

I’ve been very hard on the federal judiciary in the past year due to its shameful, craven deference in the post-9/11 world to executive power and, especially, attempts to prosecute Muslims on Terrorism charges. But this is definitely an exception to that trend. This is an extraordinary and encouraging decision. All the usual caveats apply: this is only a preliminary injunction (though the court made it clear that she believes plaintiffs will ultimately prevail). It will certainly be appealed and can be reversed. There are still other authorities (including the AUMF) which the DOJ can use to assert the power of indefinite detention. Nonetheless, this is a rare and significant limit placed on the U.S. Government’s ability to seize ever-greater powers of detention-without-charges, and it is grounded in exactly the right constitutional principles: ones that federal courts and the Executive Branch have been willfully ignoring for the past decade.#Link

Add To The Conversation Using Facebook Comments

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

© 2012 Pakalert Press. All rights reserved.
https://ilmukomunikasi.uad.ac.id/
https://dtp.bengkuluprov.go.id/
https://prime.edu.pk/blogs/
https://upardigital.uparsistem.edu.co/
https://hotelarjuna.com/
https://dpk.banggaikep.go.id/
https://janestrinket.co.id/
https://serioustech.co.uk/
https://bestwesterndrycleaners.co.uk/
https://dev.iphi.or.id/
https://skynetsolutions.co.in/
https://sanbuka.co.id/
https://shop2.sanbuka.co.id/
https://dyon.sanbuka.co.id/
https://shop.sanbuka.co.id/
https://tangerangmotor.co.id/
https://bangsatangiisuk.co.id/
https://bidkoin.id/
https://binausaha.my.id/
https://iphijateng.or.id/
https://iteso.co.id/
https://rblogistics.co.id/
https://zteindonesia.co.id/
https://processthink.co.uk/
https://lynxlolerservices.co.uk/
https://g4x.co.uk/
https://emleather.co.za/
https://smkn2jiwan.sch.id/
https://theparivartan.co.in/
https://demo.apel.co.id/
https://www.smkn1sgs.sch.id/
https://menstruationstassen-test.com/
https://www.neubau-immobilie-leipzig.de/
https://www.thefarmwifelife.com/
https://anhduongcompany.vn/
https://ttg.com.ar/
https://yanagz.com/
https://sportmatchcoaching.com/
https://flughafen-taxi-muenchen.com/
https://mts-mqtebuireng.sch.id/
https://indialawtimes.com/
http://dominicandreamgirl.com/
https://www.32sing.com/
https://espanahijos.com/
http://psiquiatraenprovidencia.cl/
http://2z25.com/
http://agapelux.com/
http://kmh-tea.com/
http://metabolitea.com/
http://itn-info.com/
https://www.cacciamotorworx.com/
https://dupsrl.shop/
https://quickbooktravles.com/
https://uvasi.ru/
https://discimus.com.br/
https://baizelshoecare.co.za/
https://amaronilogistics.eu/
https://gameofprint.de/
https://centrogaiaom.com/
https://www.vignet.net/
https://veganscure.com/
https://geze.com.ua/
https://maxtorcpro.com/
https://sajiddesigns.com/
https://grandkozmetik.mk/
https://javachatpodcast.com/
https://kelashartanah.my/
https://oncallorganicfood.com/
https://topproductsbasket.net/
https://henyodigital.com/
https://www.penzonerealty.com/
https://www.snaptosign.com/
https://www.svelaluxury.it/
https://afrilandforexboard.com/
https://foodfusionhk.com/
https://shop.drdavidgilpin.com/
https://threeriversmedicalgroup.com/
https://zmart.hk/
https://metatoursae.com/
https://losafoods.com/
https://runoved.ru/
https://toffeehousesweets.com/
https://toshow.us/
https://www.toytrucks.com.ph/
https://virtusmurano.com/
https://latisanery.com/
https://changelifeorganization.org/
https://chiapow.com/
https://bestcardiologistnashik.in/
https://jeansjourney.us/
https://inhawellness.com/
https://inland.website/
https://painfulparenting.com/
https://pakalertpress.com/
https://s3webservices.tech/
https://b4uage.com/
https://babycar.in/
https://luxuriousrentz.com/
https://agelessbeautylaserskinspa.com/
https://theonenews.in/
https://pickandgofurniture.com/
https://gadgeto.gr/
https://equalitynetworkllc.com/
https://tonyslavin.com/
https://myidlyrics.com/
https://downloadbusinesscourse.com/
https://aahanagroups.com/
http://runwithyourheart.site/
https://clocksportsnews.com/
https://bajahighland.com/
https://terraagrofertil.com.br/
https://gailelaine.com/
https://joyasvalldor.com/
https://juliansrecipes.com/
https://haamburg.com/
https://www.laidegoldskinclinic.com/
https://venec.mk/
https://fuelpumpexpress.com/
https://humanitarianstudies.ch/
https://panmarketllc.com/
https://topfroosh.com/
https://russellandcosolicitors.co.uk/
https://rocherocean.fr/
https://proconsultant.tech/
https://travel.savings.org/
https://evergreenpharmaceuticals.co.uk/
https://techfat.com/
https://goodfix.ir/
http://mycrimea.online/
https://cprnabzino.com/
https://espotting.com/
https://mold.maqopt.com.br/
https://puppiesanimals.com/
https://essentialblackmedia.com/
https://allindiastrengthwars.in/
https://saudepreciosa.com/
https://edeyselldigitals.com/
https://saltandpepperideas.com/
https://currentnewstv.in/
https://apologetics.ro/
https://flockgear.life/
https://hiremedubai.com/
https://afelleclothing.com/
https://famousstoreis.com/
https://dolmie.com/
https://topnotchdealz.net/
https://cryptoswaptrade.com/
https://theusaage.com/
https://dogbecat.com/
demo slot
SENGTOTO
SENGTOTO
LOGIN EVOSTOSO
DAFTAR EVOSTOTO
jebol togel
mikatoto
Slot Gacor
mikatoto
PREDIKSI TOTO MACAU
Bet168
obat penggugur kandungan
obat aborsi
cytotec
https://slot-thailand.unfangin.ac.id/
https://lisinoprila.net/
sarangslot
sarangslot
https://lib.radenintan.ac.id/js/-/gacorx/
dewalive
https://datapusdataru.jatengprov.go.id/pilihpengadilan/star777/
https://datapusdataru.jatengprov.go.id/elementor/asiabet/
https://datapusdataru.jatengprov.go.id/elementor/dewa4d/
Slot Thailand
https://datapusdataru.jatengprov.go.id/elementor/infini88/
https://datapusdataru.jatengprov.go.id/elementor/hoki88/
https://datapusdataru.jatengprov.go.id/elementor/boss88/
https://lib.radenintan.ac.id/pilihkoleksi/dewahoki/
https://lib.radenintan.ac.id/pilihkoleksi/gacor4d/
https://lib.radenintan.ac.id/pilihkoleksi/dewa4d/
https://bahisseninuyelik.com/
akun pro malaysia
slot gacor 777
SINGASARITOTO
SINGASARITOTO
JUMBOTOTO
MAFIATOTO
KARTUTOTO
ASUSTOGEL
BAIM4D
Bimabet
hujantoto
bet168
TOP1TOTO
TOP1TOTO
TOP1TOTO
TOP1TOTO
TOP1TOTO
TOP1TOTO
TOP1TOTO
TOP1TOTO
OKBTOGEL
OKBTOGEL
OKBTOGEL
OKBTOGEL LOGIN
TOPJITU
KARTUTOTO
SINGASARITOTO
JIMBASLOT
HUJANTOTO
JUMBOTOTO
OMETOTO
JAYA4D
TOPJITU
KARTUTOTO
KARTUTOTO
MILO4D
MILO4D
TOP1TOTO
sonic77
okbtogel link alternatif
okbtogel login
okbtogel
https://allisonrandolph.com/