HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Section 1021(b)(2) of the...

Tue Sep 18, 2012, 12:23 PM

Section 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), declared unconstitutional!

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/we_won_--_for_now_20120917


We Won—for Now

Posted on Sep 17, 2012

By Chris Hedges

In January I sued President Barack Obama over Section 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which authorized the military to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely, strip them of due process and hold them in military facilities, including offshore penal colonies. Last week, round one in the battle to strike down the onerous provision, one that saw me joined by six other plaintiffs including Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg, ended in an unqualified victory for the public. U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest, who accepted every one of our challenges to the law, made her temporary injunction of the section permanent. In short, she declared the law unconstitutional.

Almost immediately after Judge Forrest ruled, the Obama administration challenged the decision. Government prosecutors called the opinion “unprecedented” and said that “the government has compelling arguments that it should be reversed.” The government added that it was an “extraordinary injunction of worldwide scope.” Government lawyers asked late Friday for an immediate stay of Forrest’s ban on the use of the military in domestic policing and on the empowering of the government to strip U.S. citizens of due process. The request for a stay was an attempt by the government to get the judge, pending appeal to a higher court, to grant it the right to continue to use the law. Forrest swiftly rejected the stay, setting in motion a fast-paced appeal to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and possibly, if her ruling is upheld there, to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Justice Department sent a letter to Forrest and the 2nd Circuit late Friday night informing them that at 9 a.m. Monday the Obama administration would ask the 2nd Circuit for an emergency stay that would lift Forrest’s injunction. This would allow Obama to continue to operate with indefinite detention authority until a formal appeal was heard. The government’s decision has triggered a constitutional showdown between the president and the judiciary.

“This may be the most significant constitutional standoff since the Pentagon Papers case,” said Carl Mayer, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs.

“The administration of President Obama within the last 48 hours has decided to engage in an all-out campaign to block and overturn an order of a federal judge,” said co-lead counsel Bruce Afran. “As Judge Forrest noted in her opinion, nothing is more fundamental in American law than the possibility that journalists, activists and citizens could lose their liberty, potentially forever, and the Obama administration has now lined up squarely with the most conservative elements of the Republican Party to undermine Americans’ civil liberties.”

..more..

4 replies, 2745 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 4 replies Author Time Post
Reply Section 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), declared unconstitutional! (Original post)
G_j Sep 2012 OP
denverbill Sep 2012 #1
G_j Sep 2012 #2
denverbill Sep 2012 #3
G_j Sep 2012 #4

Response to G_j (Original post)

Tue Sep 18, 2012, 12:34 PM

1. Gee, I wonder how the Supreme Court will rule. /sarcasm

Americakorps Uber Alles!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to denverbill (Reply #1)

Tue Sep 18, 2012, 01:44 PM

2. a depressing but

logical line of thought.. not much chance there

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 18, 2012, 04:49 PM

3. What's most depresing about this to me, is that it's Obama supporting this.

A constitutional law professor, of all people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to denverbill (Reply #3)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 01:19 AM

4. which, as pointed out, begs the question,

Is the admin. already using this law?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread