Congrats to Judge Forrest for doing what's right and upholding the Constitution
Congrats to Judge Forrest for doing what's right and upholding the Constitution
Judge Forrest is one of the only people in government who actually represents the people.... kudos to her, tbh....
good for her.
If it goes to SCOTUS, NDAA will win.
And Democrats still want to vote for this lying fake piece of shit President.
The bastard appealed the decision already within 24 hours.
The prick signs the Bill first of all on New Years Eve because he's a pussy, and of course the mainstream media isn't showing much of what just happened with Judge Forrest overturning this.
But people think he gave a nice speech at the rigged DNC, so I guess that's all that matters.
The good people at RT are true patriots!
NDAA Case: Indefinite Detention Injunction Does Irreparable Harm, Obama Admin. Lawyers Argue
WASHINGTON — Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge’s ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody.
The lawyers made the argument on Friday in seeking a stay of the ruling, issued earlier this week by Judge Katherine Forrest in the Southern District of New York.
Forrest had ruled on behalf of a group of journalists and activists who said they feared the government could grab them under section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. That section affirms the administration’s right to detain any “person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces,” including U.S. citizens.
Forrest found that the definitions of “substantially supported” and “associated forces” were so vague that a reporter or activist could not be sure they would not be covered under the provision if they worked with a group deemed to be associated with terrorists, or perhaps circulated the message of an associated individual by printing an interview.
The judged ruled that such a circumstance violated the First Amendment right to free speech, as well as the Fifth Amendment right to due process that holds that a person must be able to understand what actions would break the law.
Forrest also argued that in passing the law, Congress had dramatically expanded the categories of people that can be detained, although the legislation itself and the administration asserted that the provision was doing nothing more than reasserting the White House’s authority originally granted under the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force that lawmakers passed after the 9/11 attacks.
Friday, in a stay request signed by New York’s Southern District U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, Assistant Attorney General Stuart Delery and Department of Defense General Counsel Jeh Johnson, the government argued that the injunction was an “unprecedented” trespass on power of the president and the legislature that by its very nature was doing irreparable harm.
The request also argued that the injuction places an undue burden on military commanders in a time of war while the plaintiffs — among them pulitzer-prize-winning reporter Chris Hedges and noted left-wing academic Noam Chomsky — had no reasonable fear of ever being detained “in the foreseeable future.”
“The Court’s injunction against application of section 1021 ‘in any manner, as to any person,’ … combined with its mistaken view that section 1021 goes beyond reaffirming the authority contained in the AUMF, could impose entirely unjustified burdens on military officials worldwide, complicating the ability to carry out an armed conflict authorized by Congress in the public interest,” the stay request says.
“Given the absence of any risk of impending harm to plaintiffs, the serious injury to the government and the public interest in the invalidation of a statute enacted by public representatives, and the possible effect on an ongoing armed conflict and the Executive’s prerogatives in military affairs, a stay is necessary,” it concludes.
The request is seeking both an immediate temporary stay so that the matter can be argued, and a permanent one lasting until higher courts resolve the case, which the administration announced Thursday it would appeal. A hearing was set for Wednesday next week. Forrest denied the short-term stay, so the law cannot currently be used.
A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Bruce Afran, noted that the government’s lawyers told Judge Forrest during arguments after she issued her first temporary injunction in May that they did not know if the administration was using the detention provision. If the government is now arguing that stopping the practice would cause irreparable harm, it shows the administration was indeed using the law and violating the injunction, Afran said.
“The only way they could be done irreparable harm is if they’ve been using this all along,” Afran said.
“It just shows the lawlessness of this, even under the Obama administration,” he added.
The group Demand Progress has been appealing to President Obama to stop defending the law, and said more than 60,000 have signed a petition on the matter since Wednesday.
Obama wins right to indefinitely detain Americans under NDAA
A lone appeals judge bowed down to the Obama administration late Monday and reauthorized the White House’s ability to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or due process.
Last week, a federal judge ruled that an temporary injunction on section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 must be made permanent, essentially barring the White House from ever enforcing a clause in the NDAA that can let them put any US citizen behind bars indefinitely over mere allegations of terrorist associations. On Monday, the US Justice Department asked for an emergency stay on that order, and hours later US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Judge Raymond Lohier agreed to intervene and place a hold on the injunction.
The stay will remain in effect until at least September 28, when a three-judge appeals court panel is expected to begin addressing the issue.
On December 31, 2011, US President Barack Obama signed the NDAA into law, even though he insisted on accompanying that authorization with a statement explaining his hesitance to essentially eliminate habeas corpus for the American people.
“The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it,” President Obama wrote. “In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”
A lawsuit against the administration was filed shortly thereafter on behalf of Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges and others, and Judge Forrest agreed with them in district court last week after months of debate. With the stay issued on Monday night, however, that justice’s decision has been destroyed.
With only Judge Lohier’s single ruling on Monday, the federal government has been once again granted the go ahead to imprison any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners" until a poorly defined deadline described as merely “the end of the hostilities.” The ruling comes despite Judge Forrest's earlier decision that the NDAA fails to “pass constitutional muster” and that the legislation contained elements that had a "chilling impact on First Amendment rights”
Because alleged terrorists are so broadly defined as to include anyone with simple associations with enemy forces, some members of the press have feared that simply speaking with adversaries of the state can land them behind bars.
"First Amendment rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be legislated away," Judge Forrest wrote last week. "This Court rejects the Government's suggestion that American citizens can be placed in military detention indefinitely, for acts they could not predict might subject them to detention."
Bruce Afran, a co-counsel representing the plaintiffs in the case Hedges v Obama, said Monday that he suspects the White House has been relentless in this case because they are already employing the NDAA to imprison Americans, or plan to shortly.
“A Department of Homeland Security bulletin was issued Friday claiming that the riots [in the Middle East] are likely to come to the US and saying that DHS is looking for the Islamic leaders of these likely riots,” Afran told Hedges for a blogpost published this week. “It is my view that this is why the government wants to reopen the NDAA — so it has a tool to round up would-be Islamic protesters before they can launch any protest, violent or otherwise. Right now there are no legal tools to arrest would-be protesters. The NDAA would give the government such power. Since the request to vacate the injunction only comes about on the day of the riots, and following the DHS bulletin, it seems to me that the two are connected. The government wants to reopen the NDAA injunction so that they can use it to block protests.”
Within only hours of Afran’s statement being made public, demonstrators in New York City waged a day of protests in order to commemorate the one-year anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Although it is not believed that the NDAA was used to justify any arrests, more than 180 political protesters were detained by the NYPD over the course of the day’s actions. One week earlier, the results of a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the American Civil Liberties Union confirmed that the FBI has been monitoring Occupy protests in at least one instance, but the bureau would not give further details, citing that decision is "in the interest of national defense or foreign policy."
Josh Gerstein, a reporter with Politico, reported on the stay late Monday and acknowledged that both Forrest and Lohier were appointed to the court by President Obama.
btw, do you read anything besides infowars? just curious . . .
Exactly how many Americans have been jailed using NDAA by Obama?
Isn't it quite telling that during trial and the temporary injunction that Barry couldn't tell the Judge if they were illegally using this already against her orders, and after her official final ruling he immediately appeals it and asks for an EMERGENCY overturn of this ruling? Why? And what's the urgency? Sounds like Barry is paranoid and might just already be using it, either way, he's fighting it aggressively for a reason..for what purpose? It's pretty obvious.
I just laugh at this shit because no one rips Barry a new one for supporting this. Barry is suppose to not be Bush yet he supports shit like this and is okay with it. What a fuckin' hypocrite and tool. And his supporters are delusional.
I want someone in the national media to call Obama out on this shit.
a google search might satisfy that curiosity, but I doubt you're up to it
I shouldn't have to do that. Everyone should have to have their fair share of doing a google search for me. Oh snap.
this law...only applies to teh common ppl, not the filthy rich...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz27atfxqmU“He’s gone beyond George W. Bush in drones, for example. He thinks the world is his plate, that national sovereignties mean nothing, drones can go anywhere. They can kill anybody that he suspects and every Tuesday he makes the call on who lives and who dies, supposed suspects in places like Yemen and Pakistan and Afghanistan, and that is a war crime and he ought to be held to account.”
^^^ Much credit to Nader for speaking the truth. Honestly though this all really goes ignored. The way the media grills candidates on very unimportant things day and night, they hardly spend time on issues such as this. It gets swept under the rug as a whole and this is purposely done.
If they spent the same amount of time in the news about NDAA and murdered civilians on drone strikes as they do on Romney's airplane window comment and all the other nonsense they cover, the stupid public would probably actually speak up. I think murdering US Citizens without trial, and drone strikes without congressional approval (and the civilians killed in them) is way more important for the National media, tv and print to cover than a lot of the petty shit they cover. Especially when this President ran on the exact opposite 4 years ago.
I think Romney is an idiot, for his airplane remark, for his stupid tan, for not knowing shit about anything other than rich people, his avoiding of showing his taxes, the list goes on. Yes that's important to show he is a moron. But how does that take priority over our Constitutional rights, over murdering Americans and people abroad? All of which Romney would do as well. It's ridiculous. It should be all over the place more than all the other shit they cover.
They talk on MSNBC and all these stations about "Oh here is Romney again, flip flopping". Well yea, he does, he's an idiot. But yet they don't grill Obama on his promises he didn't keep, on all his contradictions. A few mentions here and there don't really count. We are talking about murder.
Turn to any station and see the crap they are covering. It isn't NDAA, or the truth about how Obama is a war monger. It's all about petty shit and soundbites and talking points that keep the public dumb and uninformed of the real facts until we vote and elect the frauds into office, all the while innocent kids are being bombed at no fault of their own.
And the stupid public is ok with this, because after all, they have football to watch this weekend. Mission accomplished.
New Reality Check: Actions Speak Louder Than Words With President
I guess some people have a different interpretation of 'this does not extend to U.S. citizens"....some people just don't get it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...scal_Year_2012All persons arrested and detained according to the provisions of section 1021, including those detained on U.S. soil, whether detained indefinitely or not, are required to be held by the United States Armed Forces. The law affords the option to have U.S. citizens detained by the armed forces but this requirement does not extend to them, as with foreign persons. Lawful resident aliens may or may not be required to be detained by the Armed Forces, "on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States."
During debate on the senate floor, Levin stated that "Administration officials reviewed the draft language for this provision and recommended additional changes. We were able to accommodate those recommendations, except for the Administration request that the provision apply only to detainees captured overseas and there's a good reason for that. Even here, the difference is modest, because the provision already excludes all U.S. citizens. It also excludes lawful residents of U.S., except to extent permitted by the constitution. The only covered persons left are those who are illegally in this country or on a tourists/short-term basis. Contrary to some press statements, the detainee provisions in our bill do not include new authority for the permanent detention of suspected terrorists. Rather, the bill uses language provided by the Administration to codify existing authority that has been upheld in federal courts."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)