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."

12 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh, that plumber you hired to fix your pipes was actually a terrorist?

      My good friends call me Harry.

    3. 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
    4. Re:A small ray of hope by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      That's because what they do is knowingly support terrorism, which is completely different.

    5. 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!
    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. 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).

  4. 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
  5. 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.