Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Federal Court Rejects NDAA's Indefinite Detention, Issues Injunction

Posted by timothy on from the hope-this-change-sticks dept.

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."

16 of 301 comments (clear)

  1. A small ray of hope by colinrichardday · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:A small ray of hope by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    2. Re:A small ray of hope by MisterSquid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      blog
    3. Re:A small ray of hope by Tokolosh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
  2. No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light by crazyjj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
    1. Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light by crazyjj · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    2. Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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).

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    3. Re:No worries, SCOTUS will give it the green light by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  3. Signing Statement? by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:Signing Statement? by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Signing Statement? by marcop · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Signing Statement? by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Signing Statement? by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  4. Constitutional rights... by spidercoz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  5. About time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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).

    1. Re:About time by MobyDisk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.