Slashdot Mirror
Federal Court Rejects NDAA's Indefinite Detention, Issues Injunction
First time accepted submitter Arker writes "A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction late Wednesday to block provisions of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act that would allow the military to indefinitely detain anyone it accuses of knowingly or unknowingly supporting terrorism. The Obama administration had argued, inter alia, that the plaintiffs, including whistleblower and transparency advocate Daniel Ellsberg and Icelandic Member of Parliament Birgitta Jonsdottir lacked standing, but Judge Katherine Forrest didnt buy it. Given recent statements from the administration, it seems safe to say this will be the start of a long court battle."
It's about time someone stood up to the nightmare of a police state.
When it makes it to the Supreme Court, they'll affirm the law. They've been asleep at the wheel for 10 years, why wake up now? I'm pretty sure that most of them aren't even aware that there *is* a 4th Amendment at this point. And they probably think Habeas Corpus was a Roman emperor.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
What about Obama's signing statement in which he decried the very power he was accepting by signing the NDAA? Do you mean to tell me Obama was dishonest in his disapproval of infinite detention? Shocking.
The crazy thing is some people actually bought the argument that this clause was forced on him by Congress. The fact that he's defending it in court makes it absolutely clear what his stance on infinite detention is.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Obama is going to kick your terrorist-loving asses!!!
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
When the merde hits the fan, we might need to use it on those "security officials" who wrote a PDF to Congress and the judge demanding that the NDAA indefinite clause be left untouched & enforced.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
The only solution is for the workers to smash the capitalist state and establish a dictatorship of workers' councils (Soviets) that will expropriate the bourgeoisie and open the road to a socialist future! Forge a revolutionary Leninist-Trotskyist workers party!
UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
They apply to everyone or they mean nothing. James T. Kirk taught me that, and I agree with him.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
It's also about time we admit to ourselves that police state momentum (i.e. continuous expansion of government) is now in full swing and supported by ALL mainstream political interests. And the next step is admitting that those political interests work purely for themselves, and not "the people" as they claim (increasingly loudly).
I am on the same side of an issue as Daniel Ellsberg. That's probably a first.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
On behalf of /., I'd like to buy you a beer. Thank you for doing your job.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
First time accepted submitter Arker writes inter alia when he meant to say either
In context, the usage is not clear, but I'm guessing the first one. In case it helps someone who likewise wanted to know if it could possibly be used as an innuendo. I don't like learning new words that can't be innuendo'ed.
It's good to see that in the US there are still some judges who apply basic international rights like the "habeas corpus". And it's good to see that there are still people who are not fooled by generic and stupid excuses like "Hey, it's a matter of national security!". What is not exactly reassuring is that the obama administration - the so-called "democrats", as you name them - was defending a law which would be clearly unconstitutional in every european country, and probably also in the U.S. themselves.
Right after graduation I was tempted to move to the US for a better job, but I think I'm gonna stay in Germany if that's what you call "freedom" and "democracy" (keep them both).
All I saw was a letter from a congressman signed by former members of staff.
For those who would like to read the actual 68 page ruling from Judge Katherine Forrest.
Time to offend someone
Excuse me while I renounce my citizenship. I can't take this crap any longer.
Welcome our Icelandic Parliament save the US overlords...
It kind of sounds like the judge is *knowingly helping the terrorists*. Doesn't it? Don't we have a law to deal with people who do that?
In case you didn't know where the idea for this was dreamed up, it was Crossroads PAC's, Karl Rove.
The idea was simple, put an anti terror bill the President would veto, Fox would present it as 'Obama loves terrorists' and nobody would look at the detail of what he actually rejected. So instead he rejected it because 'it didn't go far enough' and got safeguards put in, then orders that this law not be used.
Politics, however it shows just how nasty Crossroads is, and the Republicans all pushed this through Congress, it was worth removing all American rights to get elected it seems.
Your bias is showing. The 'right wing'(aka freedom lovers) are more vocal in their opposition to this constitutional rights killing monstrosity than all the left wing socialists that cannot say anything against their cocoa messiah since they're too busy giving him a Lewinsky.
The AUMF is the "existing law" the NDAA codifies, you simply have chosen to misread the statute.
Exactly so. Anyone who's not part of the mainstream political establishment, including Tea Partiers, Occupiers, and libertarians, should be working together to fight the corporatism that strangles us all. Instead, activists on the left and the right are assiduously kept distracted by hating the other side, often by being fed caricatures of the other side's motivations.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
Holy crap! I can be indefinitely detained for "unknowingly" supporting terrorism?! How can I prevent myself from doing something I don't know I'm doing? I'm confused o.O
He swore an oath to uphold the law even if he doesn't agree with it.
its disgusting how the nobel peace prize is a joke now cause of obama.
I'd like to think that, modern civilization is founded on some sense of inate perpetual justice, that, regardless of the extremes of belief and ideology, there lingers the requirement for a judgement by peers at some place and time. Indefinite detention, firmly rejects that sense of justice, and displaces it with strict authoritarianism. If the US can hold someone without trial indefinitely, US citizen or other, it can no longer claim it has moral authority against those it declares enemies of the state. Moral Authority being the last claim of righteousness for action against any detractor or aggressor.
It's been stated, 'one mans terrorist, is another mans freedom fighter'. I'm sure the British in 1776 considered the then colonialists, treasonous bastards, worthy of equivalence to modern day terrorists, and would have hanged them all given the oppurtunity.
The only real conclusion I can come to with all this, is that the Government truly doesn't know how to handle the accelerating information age. And out of fear, uncertainty and doubt, like so many times before with any new dramatic change improving humanities function, it must quell and control that change.
I wouldn't say this will be Americas undoing, as there are many factors and loads of time for such a thing to displace the leader, but it certainly doesn't help it's standing in the history books, or more importantly, in the present day social conscioussness, that you're witnessing a step backward in humanities progress by the seemingly lone country that dragged the world into the technological age.
For better or worse over the past 50 years, America has been the steam engine for progress on every front of humanity. Why now then, does it detract on the founding tenant with which it was built?
Worst pack of scumbags in robes since the Dredd Scott decision.
Corporations are a statist invention. Without government interference, corporations cannot exist.
/head explodes
The GPP is incorrect. The NDAA does allow indefinite detention of US citizens. I verified the language in the NDAA. And also confirmed with various explanations. Please mod the parent up and the grandparent post down.
Stop struggling. The government will be allowed to imprison anyone for no reason and monitor everything everyone does for no reason. There's no point trying to stop it. Your vote doesn't matter because if the Government doesn't like your vote they'll just change it. We're in a sick downward spiral that will result in revolt, genocide and eventually mass destitution. Already a majority of Americans are out of jobs. The only reason government statistics don't consider a majority of people to be unemployed is because you're only considered unemployed if you can be verified as currently looking for work. According the the US government, you're not unemployed if you've given up looking for a job. Also, if you have a mortgage, the government considers you a small business owner and thus employed. We will only start to recover when the money being hoarded by the obscenely rich is no longer worth anything.
And let's not forget that people elected this administration because it was supposed to stop all of the Bush administration's abuses. Instead it merely built upon them, nearly every single one.
Liberty in your lifetime
the enemy is us
Are you saying that you are your own enemy? That doesn't make sense. An individual cannot logically initiate coercion against himself. Taken to the extreme, even suicide is 100% voluntary (i.e. devoid of coercion). Coercion requires a second party, by definition. So given that you are subject to coercion, by "us" you can only mean "them".
Or by "us" are you referring to "society" which in reality is merely a collection of unique individuals? This brings to mind one of my favorite quotes -- a nuclear bomb of logic, if you will. To paraphrase: It is often said that the rights of society take precedence over the rights of the individual. But society is merely a collection of unique individuals. It has no brain, or conscience, no emotions or logic of its own. It is merely a collection of individuals. Therefore, the claim that "the rights of society take precedence over the rights of the individual" can have only one meaning: that the rights of some individuals take precedence over the rights of other individuals.
BOOM!
Nobody could have predicted the MSM wouldn't bother to show up.
Nobody could have predicted Greece would run out of ink for printing tax forms, or the state of their finance ministry.
Nobody could predict Fukushima is now a dirty bomb and all the EPA and DOE and Japaneese Govt does is raise the limits.
Nobody could predict the banks will fail
Nobody could predict removing the constitution after 911 would lead to monetary destruction, and a fascist dictatorship of foreign and corporate puppets all calling the citizens who's vote was proxied by diebold the new al-queda
Well Maybe Reggie Middelton, or Tyler Duran, or Karl Denninger, or Max Keiser,
or conspiracy theorists like the whitehats, dragon society, Drake, or Salusa
Did you all know that a hotels.com search shows only $100 dollar difference between "a one star hotel" in Greece and one in New York?
Greece $38 a night. New York $138 a night That's something to think about right there.
Dude.....these fucking assholes are playing law enforcement commercials on Youtube now. You know, the kind where they show a cop car with flashing lights, then some homey sittin in the driver's seat relating his sob story of how he didn't think he would get busted not wearing his seat belt, but the cops "radioed ahead" and he got busted.
This shit has got to fucking END. SOON.
Obama ignores court orders which he doesn't like, so it won't make any difference what the court finally decides.
Synchronizing stop lights across the US = one less nuclear power plant
How could the Obama administration ever sign such an act into law and how could they possibly defend it in court? They have betrayed everything they said they stood for.