Judge Rules Against Law on Indefinite Detention

[Montag]

Judge Rules Against Law on Indefinite Detention
by Charlie Savage

September 12, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/us/jud...n-law.html

excerpt:

A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the government from enforcing a controversial statute about the indefinite detention without trial of terrorism suspects. Congress enacted the measure last year as part of the National Defense Authorization Act.

The ruling came as the House voted to extend for five years a different statute, the FISA Amendments Act, that expanded the government’s power to conduct surveillance without warrants. Together, the developments made clear that the debate over the balance between national security and civil liberties is still unfolding 11 years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.

In the detention case, Judge Katherine B. Forrest of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a permanent injunction barring the government from relying on the defense authorization law to hold people in indefinite military detention on suspicion that they “substantially supported” Al Qaeda or its allies — at least if they had no connection to the Sept. 11 attacks.

The United States has been detaining terrorism suspects indefinitely since 2001, relying on an authorization by Congress to use military force against perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks and those who helped them. Last year, Congress decided to create a federal statute that codified authority for such detentions.

The new statute went beyond covering the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks to also cover people who were part of or substantially supported Al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or its allies. Its enactment was controversial in part because lawmakers did not specify what conduct could lead to someone’s being detained, and because it was silent about whether the statute extended to American citizens and others arrested on United States soil.

It was challenged by Chris Hedges, a journalist who interacts with terrorists as part of his reporting, and by several prominent supporters of WikiLeaks. They argued that its existence chilled their constitutional rights by creating a basis to fear that the government might seek to detain them under it by declaring that their activities made them supporters of an enemy group.

[Andrea]

I got an email about this late last night from DemandProgress.org. Here it is:

Quote:

We did it! But now we need your help putting pressure on Obama.

A federal court in New York just ruled indefinite detention UNCONSTITUTIONAL and issued a permanent injunction against use of that law. It would have allowed the military to detain civilians -- even Americans -- indefinitely and without trial if they're accused of certain crimes.

Please click here to tell Obama to back off of his support of indefinite detention, and tell your senators to oppose it when it comes up for a vote this fall.

It's an egregious violation of the Constitution, a disgusting infringement upon our due process rights, and has already had a chilling effect on activists and journalists.

That's why writer Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Tangerine Bolen and four others sued to block it.

Shockingly, the Obama administration has consistently supported indefinite detention this year -- signing it into law in the dark of night on New Year's Eve and defending it in court.

If we don't do anything, they'll probably keep fighting to protect this law!

Click here to tell Obama -- and your senators -- to stop supporting indefinite detention.

And please forward this email or use these links to share it with your friends -- Obama will make the decision about an appeal in a matter of days.

Thanks to our members for you ongoing support of this lawsuit!

-Demand Progress

That's a great photo of Obama, isn't it?

[enufalready]

Too late. Unmoved by Ruling, Obama Appeals Permanent Injunction Against Indefinite Detention Provision in NDAA

On the appeal I said this just shows that this administration believes government should have the tool of preventive and/or indefinite military detention in its arsenal. It also shows how the administration does not want to let a member of the Judicial Branch check the power of the Executive Branch. It wants unconstrained power to carry out the “war on terrorism” however it pleases, regardless of whether it sets precedents that infringe upon the rights or liberties of the people.

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/09...daa-video/

[Andrea]

I'm not surprised he appealed it. The important thing is it will move to the next level. Eventually, it will get to the Supreme Court. It's possible that even the fascist lapdogs on the Supreme Court will think this is a bridge too far. I can't find in the article whether the injunction is still in effect while undergoing appeal. I don't have time to watch the videos right now. Maybe someone else knows and will fill us in.