Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSection 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), declared unconstitutional!
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/we_won_--_for_now_20120917We Wonfor 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 Forrests 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 Forrests injunction. This would allow Obama to continue to operate with indefinite detention authority until a formal appeal was heard. The governments 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..
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 3788 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (5)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Section 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), declared unconstitutional! (Original Post)
G_j
Sep 2012
OP
denverbill
(11,489 posts)1. Gee, I wonder how the Supreme Court will rule. /sarcasm
Americakorps Uber Alles!
G_j
(40,367 posts)2. a depressing but
logical line of thought.. not much chance there
denverbill
(11,489 posts)3. What's most depresing about this to me, is that it's Obama supporting this.
A constitutional law professor, of all people.
G_j
(40,367 posts)4. which, as pointed out, begs the question,
Is the admin. already using this law?