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."

7 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. 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: 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!
  3. 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).