Judge Katherine Forest has upheld her previous ban on the use of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) provisions that allowed the president to summarily detain “terror suspects” in military custody for indefinite periods of time with no legal oversight.
In her initial ruling, Forest had accepted the arguments from a number of political dissidents, including Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg, that they had a reasonable fear that they could be disappeared off the street and held in military custody for constitutionally protected political speech. The Administration did not argue that they wouldn’t be detained, but insisted that since they hadn’t been detained yet they had no standing to contest the law.
The Administration responded by demanding that Forest reverse last month’s preliminary ruling, insisting that it was unreasonable for a court to restrict the president’s potential use of military detention “during wartime.” The Administration went on to say that it only planned to interpret the ruling as a specific ban on detaining the dissidents in the lawsuit, and not a broad ban on detaining dissidents as such.
In her ruling, Forest conceded that the lawsuit only applied to one portion of the NDAA military detentions law, and didn’t cover those directly involved in 9/11. On the other hand, she did insist that the ruling was not restricted to just keeping Ellsberg, et al. out of the brig, and that she was declaring the whole provision regarding summary detention outside of the 9/11 attackers unconstitutional.
17 thoughts on “Judge Upholds Ban on NDAA Detentions”
WHO is this person that has defied the New America of Pre-Habeas detention and the Regal Executive? Whoever this person was, they are now someone….. Someone important to the future of freedom, AND America itself…. The America where ALL are equal under the law….!!!!!! And none are above the law…..
Many thanks to the honorable Judge Katherine Forest. May this serve as a lesson to the Republican judges on the Supreme Court who may have a chance to visit this issue in the future.
"The Administration went on to say that it only planned to interpret the ruling as a specific ban on detaining the dissidents in the lawsuit, and not a broad ban on detaining dissidents as such."
The game of how much fascism you can get away with. And no-one is bothered.
Forest for the Supreme Court of the United States, we could only wish!!!!!!!
that it was unreasonable for a court to restrict the president’s potential use of military detention “during wartime.”
Our government is keeping us always at war for the benefit of the banksters among others.
This is 2012. Fro all we know, there is even a bigger catastrophe ahead that our gov. is keeping mum about so we are unprepared for what is to come.
Google: HENRY KISSINGER: "IF YOU CAN'T HEAR THE DRUMS OF WAR YOU MUST BE DEAF"
" The Administration did not argue that they wouldn’t be detained, but insisted that since they hadn’t been detained *yet* they had no standing to contest the law."
It would be kinda hard to contest a law after you've already been disappeared and have been denied all legal recourse, wouldn't it….?
Kafka justice … you can only contest a law after you are no longer in any position to contest a law.
You are allowed to scream that you are being illegally detained in the brief time between when the electrodes are attached to your genitals and before the torturers stuff the gag in your mouth. Isn't Obama a wonderful improvement over Dubya?
Let's take bets on how long it will take for the "justice" dept. to get this ruling overturned.
Obama and the Senate make sure that no one that holds these views of American liberty are not appointed to Appeals Courts, and certainly never to the Supreme Court
We have a new military base in Chili and the creed of Empire is being fulfilled, “There is security only in expansion.” How dare that lady warp the Constitution to mean anything but our freedom to be enriched upon the misery of the world.
Oh, not to worry. The elites want the power to imprison at whim, so, it'll come back.
I dont know why anyone ever thought Obama would stand up for our rights any more than Bush did. I bet his voters were disappointed after he signed the NDAA, allowing indefinite detention of American citizens. Luckily, citizens and state governments alike are starting to fight back against it (more about that here: http://www.martiallawusa.com/wp/?p=45) If Obama thinks he can subjugate the American people that easily, hes got another thing coming&
So many examples of the government trying to hold on to arbitrary power.
Wish the judge had said in response to wartime arg “please submit into evidence the declaration of war”.
According to Wikipedia:
On May 4, 2011, President Barack Obama nominated Forrest to fill a judicial seat on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York that had been vacated by Judge Jed S. Rakoff, who took senior status at the end of 2010.
Good to see the little sh*t get thwarted by one of his own nominees.
"insisting that it was unreasonable for a court to restrict the president’s potential use of military detention “during wartime.”
I wonder if the judge could point out to His Majesty that the US has not declared war on anybody, and therefore the government is not entitled to justify anything on that basiss. Just a thought.
Perhaps this will alert Mr. Obama to the degree he has alienated folks who supported him in the last election — just look at the names on the list of plaintifs. I would gladly join that list. As someone who cherishes freedom, I can now breath with a little less trepidation.
There is a related issue re the 'Kill List'. I hope I'm not on it, I revere the folks who bought it to public attention, and I have added my name to the, "Do Not Kill" list. Lookitup.
This means nothing. Once this makes it to the Corporate Supreme Court, the Corporate Supremos will ensure that it stays…in fact, they may even add a couple more Fascist caveats of their own just to ensure a faster transition.
Comments are closed.