US Judge Strikes Down NDAA's 'Indefinite Detention'


U.S. District Court Judge Katherine Forrest made permanent an injunction against enforcement of Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act, which was declared unconstitutional. Section 1021 is a provision that allows the federal government to have the military detain and hold indefinitely any person, including U.S. citizens, on simply claiming that they are suspected of terrorism or involved with terrorists and requires absolutely no evidence be provided against them. No due process is given to the detainee. consequently Section 1022 is tied to 1021 in that it requires military custody, not local authorities.

Judge Forrest said the section was a "chilling impact on First Amendment rights."

The NDAA's indefinite detention policy was signed into law by Barack Obama on January 1 of this year, supported by members of the Democrat, as well as, the Republican Parties and was supported by the Republican candidate for President Mitt Romney during the primary debates.

The Obama administration took only a few hours to file an appeal of the judge's ruling and attorneys even asked her to halt enforcement of her order.

In Forrest's order she wrote,

“The government put forth the qualified position that plaintiffs’ particular activities, as described at the hearing, if described accurately, if they were independent, and without more, would not subject plaintiffs to military detention under Section 1021.”

“The government did not – and does not – generally agree or anywhere argue that activities protected by the First Amendment could not subject an individual to indefinite military detention under Section 1021," she continued.

Interestingly enough, the same media that provided cover for Obama during his rise to the Oval Office are the same ones who brought this case to trial. The journalists "contend the controversial section allows for detention of citizens and residents taken into custody in the U.S. on “suspicion of providing substantial support” to anyone engaged in hostilities against the U.S. The lawsuit alleges the law is vague and could be read to authorize the arrest and detention of people whose speech or associations are protected by the First Amendment. They wonder whether interviewing a member of AL-Qaeda would be considered 'substantial support.'”

Bloomberg reports,

The U.S. asked a judge to delay implementation of an order permanently blocking enforcement of a law that opponents claim may subject them to indefinite military detention for speech protected by the Constitution.

The Justice Department today asked U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest for a stay of the Sept. 12 decision, in a case challenging a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012. In the ruling, Forrest extended a preliminary injunction against the law that she had entered in May.

Forrest ruled that the law violates rights guaranteed by the First, Fifth and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Forrest, in her order, writes "The court repeatedly asked the government whether those particular past activities could subject plaintiffs to indefinite military detention; the government refused to answer."

“The Constitution places affirmative limits on the power of the executive to act, and these limits apply in times of peace as well as times of war,” she continued.

She wrote that the law “impermissibly impinges on guaranteed First Amendment rights and lacks sufficient definitional structure and protection to meet the requirements of due process.”

“This court rejects the government’s suggestion that American citizens can be placed in military detention indefinitely, for acts they could not predict might subject them to detention, and have as their sole remedy a habeas petition adjudicated by a single decision-maker (a judge versus a jury), by a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard,” wrote Forrest

“That scenario dispenses with a number of guaranteed rights,” she wrote.

While this is a huge blow to the federal government, remember that they are using our own tax dollars against us to fight for this unconstitutional and immoral law that can detain citizens for whatever the government deems that they want to detain them for. They can do so indefinitely, without charge, trial, jury or anything close to due process, which they have sworn to do in their oath of office.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

Print Friendly





Comments

comments

  • savagenation

    Obama has been painted as the heavy, but he's really just codifying policies that have been in practice in the open and secret for a long time.

  • Gringo Infidel

    NDAA was sold as a means to combat 'non-military combatants' who take up arms against the United States. However, it does not take a Harvard Law degree to see how evil and corrupted this could very easily be. The judge did made the right decision. Of course, the FEDS could still do this and simply not tell anyone.

    Fear the government that fears your liberty.

  • maryhowland

    my heavens. i feel like we are in russia only i think russia may not be as bad. I cannot believe rubio would sign such a thing. this is the most perposterous thing i have ever heard of. people. this is getting very scarey. and these sheep are so totally with him. well I. speechless.

  • chvietvet

    Why did the judge just say that this law violates the First Amendment. What about the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Amendments? Once again, the passage and enforcement of this law shows that we now have a one party system in the United States, where that party lets us choose between one very bad candidate and one who is even worse. It is time to start voting only for third party candidates who have not sold their souls to evil special interest groups.

  • Henry Bowman

    Nothing but hype -- The NDAA is an ANNUAL defense appropriations bill. What this judge ruled was that sec 1021 & 1022 of NDAA 2012 were unconstitutional. The court DID NOT rule that indefinite detention in and of itself were unconstitutional. Consequently our treasonous congresscritters turned around and reinserted the very same detention provisions into NDAA 2013 after voting down the Smith-Amash amendment.

    http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/11441-smith-amash-amendment-rejected-indefinite-detention-still-the-law

  • Alfredo

    Another words Obama wants to let the terrProst I Guantanamo go free

  • Dan

    Everyone has a right to be highly concerned over this and many other direct assaults on our Constitution. Without our Consitutiton, which Obama has stated is a "hindrance to the ability to govern..."? there is no even application of the law, and we can all be detained indefinitely for e-mails just like this one. Any member of Congress who votes for any legislation that is found to be unconstitutional should be recalled immediiately. This sounds difficult to implement but trust me, after the first one or two Representatives or Senators are sent home, it will force the remaining 530 members of Congress to not only read, but comprehend the legislaton they vote for! No more Nancy Pelosi "We have to pass it so we can know what's in it".

  • marcthepig

    Obama is nearing his excuse to declare martial law. The middle east is erupting and he's just waiting for something to happen here so he can suspend the election, the constitution, and become dictator for life. The useful idiots in the media will run cover for him, as they always have, and the ones who don't will disappear.

  • https://openid.aol.com/opaque/a86b7014-8973-11e1-8b96-000bcdcb8a73 WATCHER

    Alan West is not a Senator and would never go along with that. The RINO elite are nothing but useless liberal scum and need to be voted out.

  • Randy K

    I find myself pleasantly astounded by the CORRECT actions of someone on our increasingly communist judiciary. She had best be careful. The democowards and ACLU might be knocking on her door soon.

  • Mark Biolchino

    If the lady ever runs for congress she will get my vote. Mark

  • gotham1883

    Anyone have faith than John Robber will rule against this law. He has shown himself to be a tool, and a fool.

  • gotham1883

    So, everyone think Republicans can be trusted. Not hardly. If they supported this law then they are just as bad as democrats, worse.