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."

3 of 301 comments (clear)

  1. The actual ruling by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those who would like to read the actual 68 page ruling from Judge Katherine Forrest.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  2. Re:Signing Statement? by artor3 · · Score: 5, Informative

    You've been tricked by a summary rife with propaganda.

    The the lying demagogue who wrote the article states, "Given recent statements from the administration, it seems safe to say this will be the start of a long court battle." The deceitful bastard was clever enough to include a hyperlink, knowing you wouldn't click on it but would instead just accept it as gospel. But go ahead, click on it. The recent statements referred to are from a joint letter by several former officials. Their names?

    Edwin Meese - Republican Attorney General under Reagan
    Michael Mukasey - Republican Attorney General under George W Bush
    Michael Chertoff - Republican Secretary of Homeland Security under George W Bush
    Steven G Bradbury - Republican Head of the OLC under George W Bush
    Daniel Dell'Orto - Republican Lawyer for the DOD under George W Bush
    David Rivkin - Republican Legal Counsel to both Reagan and George HW Bush, and the guy behind the lawsuit against the ACA
    Charles Stimson - Republican Deputy Assistant Secretary in charge of "Detainee Affairs" under George W Bush
    Paul Butler - Can't find any details on this guy, but he's definitely not the Democrat of the same name who died in the 60s.
    Seven Engel - One of the lawyers in the anti-ACA lawsuit.
    Paul Rosenzsweig - Member of the Heritage Foundation, a well known right-wing think tank.

    Do you really think anyone on that list is speaking for the Obama administration? Sadly, the truth takes time to dig up, and in that time hundreds of people have no doubt seen the summary and your post, and fallen for the propaganda. What hope does truth have against such well-engineered lies?

  3. You're wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    "This is a brilliant lie" Nope, sorry chief, you fail. Read it AGAIN "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law" EXISITING LAW. Which in this case is the AUMF, already allowed indefinite detention by Presidential fiat. This law just codifies it. You are EXACTLY wrong.

    (a) In General. Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the [AUMF] includes the authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war. (b) Covered Persons. A covered person under this section is any person as follows . . . (2) A 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, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces. (c) Disposition Under the Law of War. The disposition of a person under the law of war as described un subsection (a) may include the following: (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of hostilities authorized by the [AUMF].

    The AUMF is the "existing law" the NDAA codifies, you simply have chosen to misread the statute.