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."

Comments

A small ray of hope

[colinrichardday]

It's about time someone stood up to the nightmare of a police state.

Re:A small ray of hope

[ZeroSumHappiness]

I love that they could indefinitely detain for "unknowingly supporting terrorism." Oh, that plumber you hired to fix your pipes was actually a terrorist? You supported him therefore you supported terrorism. WAT?

Re:A small ray of hope

[MisterSquid]

I love that they could indefinitely detain for "unknowingly supporting terrorism."

To say nothing about the ways in which US politicians and government operatives make back-channel deals that support terrorism they find politically expedient. You won't see anyone being detained for that.

Re:A small ray of hope

[artor3]

It only applies to foreign nationals who are arrested overseas (i.e. not on American soil). If you're a citizen or a legal immigrant, you're safe. If you're arrested in America, you're safe. It's not a good law, but my god, does anyone on this site have any idea what it even says?

Re:A small ray of hope

[Tokolosh]

Either we (Americans) believe in our core values (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, Pledge of Allegiance, due process, etc.) or we do not. Personally, I do, because these values result in desirable outcomes in the long run, even if inconvenient in the short term.

These values apply universally. There are no exemptions for non-US citizens, location outside the US or convenience to US interests.

No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[crazyjj]

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.

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[crazyjj]

You mean like they struck down the Patriot Act, retroactive immunity for illegal wiretapping, and all the other laws that have made torture and infinite detention with no trial legal?

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[Shotgun]

Your statement, combined with your sig, gave me a serious headache.

The Republicans are offering coporate slavery.
The Democrats are offering government bureaucrat slavery.
They both are willing to use the military, the "War on [Terror|Drugs|Poverty|Obesity|Bullying|CO2]" to get their way.

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[cpu6502]

The Court can only strike-down cases brought before them, and the government (both Bush and Obama) have been very careful to make sure that doesn't happen. They drop the case before it ever has a chance to reach the justices.

BUT when the justices have reviewed cases, they've typically sided with the Constitution, such as striking down the Washington and other city's laws that effectively-forbid ownership of guns. Striking down a law that forced states to build nuclear disposal sites. Striking down warrantless searches of our cellphones. Striking down random stops along highways (unless there's a specific & urgent need: such as locating an escaped prisoner). The Court of the last ten years has done more to limit the government's power than the Court from 1940 to 2000 (which was expansionist).

Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light

[Grishnakh]

I think you're mistaken.

The Republicans are offering corporate slavery.
The Democrats are offering corporate slavery.
There's some minor differences in the particular corporations they would enslave you to.

Signing Statement?

[Hatta]

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.

Re:Signing Statement?

[Hatta]

If he wanted to reject those provisions, he could've appealed to a court literally the minute he signed it.

If he wanted to reject those provisions, he should have vetoed it. Actually, if he wanted to adhere to his oath to uphold the Constitution, he is required to veto it. But he didn't, so we know how much an oath is worth to Barack Obama.

Re:Signing Statement?

[marcop]

What about it? He should be thrown out of office on treason against the constitution. I'm not arguing whether or not any of his other policies are good or bad, and will not state my political affiliation. However, when a president blatantly violates a basic freedom that so many Americans have fought to protect, a freedom he has sworn to protect, then he deserves treason charges. And yes, GWB deserved it also for the exact same reasons.

But the sheep that live in this country will ignore it and instead either applaud or crucify him for his social policies. Pitiful.

Re:Signing Statement?

[cpu6502]

>>>yet people still fall for it.

Exactly. Even when I post direct articles from reputable sources like NYtimes or USAtoday about Obama assassinating 3 Americans (including a 16-year-old boy) without giving them their constitutional right to a trial to prove their innocence, there are some people who refuse to believe it. And continue loving the man. (Or just call me racist against black people.)

Re:Signing Statement?

[Hatta]

Yes, but anti cannabis bigotry is far, far worse than anti-gay bigotry. Around 5-10% of the population is gay. Around 10-20% of the population smokes pot. Neither of these groups pose any threat to anyone whatsoever.

Gay people might get fired because of bigotry. Worst case scenario one is lynched, once a decade or so and there's a huge outcry of sympathy.

Pot smokers on the other hand go to jail regularly. Persecution of pot smokers is official government policy. When a harmless pot head is killed by a police officer, the officer generally gets a paid vacation for his trouble.

Every time a pot smoker is arrested, that's a hate crime.

Re:Signing Statement?

[Hatta]

Just how gullible are you? Has the phrase "He beats me because he loves me" ever passed your lips?

If selling out every democratic principle is what it takes to win Congress's trust, we don't need it. We'd be better off with a president that vetos every single grab for power and gets nothing else done, than we are with this collaborater.

Re:Signing Statement?

[cpu6502]

Irrelevant. It was OBAMA who told Congress to add those two sentences for indefinite detainment w/o trial. The only reason he would do that is so he can use the power to grab Americans off the streets, accuse them of being terrorists, and then lock them away for 10 years w/o a trial to defend their innocence. (Probably in Guantanamo... the place Obama promised to close but never did.) Obama also assassinated 3 americans in Africa, including one 16-year-old boy, and without giving them their recognized right to trial. He is NOT the honest man you believe him to be.

Re:Signing Statement?

[element-o.p.]

I would say that the American people have become so intellectually lazy, complacent and ignorant that they let the President -- any President -- as well as Congress get away with crazy, illegal things...and I'm an American myself, so it's incredibly frustrating to me how many people Just. Don't. Get. It: "But we're the good guys. I don't care if a terrorist is locked up indefinitely. They should be locked up, right?"

Sigh...

Constitutional rights...

[spidercoz]

They apply to everyone or they mean nothing. James T. Kirk taught me that, and I agree with him.

About time

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

Re:About time

[Grishnakh]

Not just "political interests" (which I assume you mean political parties and candidates and other well-connected people or organizations), it's the regular American people too. Anyone who votes Republican, except maybe the die-hard Ron Paul people who aren't also Tea Party supporters, obviously supports a police state. And then anyone who supports Obama (which is most Democrats) strongly supports a police state too, because they're so dumb that they support anything Obama supports, even if back during Bush's reign they were fervently opposed to that exact same thing.

It's looking more obvious to me that Obama was a plant by the powers-that-be to get the American people on board with their schemes. Before, it was only the Republican voters who were easily duped into supporting this crap, and the Democrat voters were generally against it. So they realized all they had to do was come up with a Democrat candidate who said nice-sounding things to get these peoples' support, then when he was in office he'd just copy all of Bush's policies, and since the voters are such dumb sheep, most of them would simply change their opinions to match the policies of the guy they voted for. I believe psychologists would classify this behavior as "cognitive dissonance". There's still some Obama voters and other Democrats who are pissed at him, but most of them support him and shout down the disgruntled ones.

Re:About time

[MobyDisk]

The step after that, is admitting that this is also supported by mainstream Americans. Here at Slashdot we would like to think that it is the people -vs- the politicians. But in reality the people support this too. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, most Americans trust the government and the military to look out for them, and so they support warrant-less wiretapping and infinite detention because they perceive that it protects them from terrorists.

I'm sorry, but the enemy is us.

Re:Corporatism is the enemy of left and right

[Grishnakh]

I don't think that's an accurate portrayal of the Tea Partiers at all. It was probably accurate back when that group first got started, but they were very quickly co-opted by corporate interests, so nowadays they're just the more extreme wing of the (corporatist) Republican party. It's sad, because they had some good principles at the very beginning, but just like how easily the Obama voters were led into accepting and backing Bush policies just by having "their guy" parrot them, the TPers were easily led into pushing for tax cuts for the ultra-rich and corporations by some politicians claiming to be for them.