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!
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).
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.
For those who would like to read the actual 68 page ruling from Judge Katherine Forrest.
Time to offend someone
Actually, she does have standing. As a member of parliament, she could be expected to travel to the US for official state visits. Her records have already been subpoenaed by the DOJ because of her association with WikiLeaks. Therefore, if her simple presence in the US could make her subject to indefinite detention, she does have standing - remember, she was afraid to come to the US to testify for that exact reason. Remember, the US Constitution doesn't apply only to US citizens, it applies to anyone subject to US law, including visitors and foreign nationals wanted by US authorities...
According to TFA, the government refused to say whether the Icelandic parliament member was violating the law or could be jailed. Perhaps we haven't snatched any Icelanders yet, but the government is still reserving the right to do so in the future and specifically is reserving the right to snatch this particular person.
Of course, the government probably wouldn't snatch any Icelanders, but that would be because of selective prosecution--the law lets them snatch anyone. If the law lets them snatch anyone, then anyone should have standing.
The AUMF is the "existing law" the NDAA codifies, you simply have chosen to misread the statute.
We don't need one.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
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.
/head explodes
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.