I’ve updated this post to include info sent in by a reader, which because of our ongoing discussion seems important: Obama appointed the judge on this case. ~J
Published: 17 May, 2012, 04:09
Plaintiff Jennifer “Tangerine” Bolen speaks to reporters during a news conference outside the Federal Court in Manhattan March 29, 2012 (Reuters / Mike Segar)
A US federal judge has temporarily blocked a section of the controversial National Defense Authorization Act that allows for the indefinite military detention of US citizens.
In a 68-page ruling, US District Judge Katherine Forrest agreed on Wednesday that the statute failed to “pass constitutional muster” because its language could be interpreted quite broadly and eventually be used to suppress political dissent.
“There is a strong public interest in protecting rights guaranteed by the First Amendment,” Forrest wrote, according to CourtHouseNews.Com. “There is also a strong public interest in ensuring that due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment are protected by ensuring that ordinary citizens are able to understand the scope of conduct that could subject them to indefinite military detention.”
The Manhattan judge therefore ruled in favor of a group of writers and activists who sued US officials, including President Barack Obama. They claimed that the act, which was signed into law on December 31, makes them fear possible arrest by US armed forces.
Among those who filed the complaint, Bloomberg reports, was former New York Times reporter Christopher Hedges. According to the journalist, NDAA would allow federal authorities to hold him in custody just for interviewing individuals who were detained on “suspicion of providing substantial support” to people engaged in hostilities against the US.
The order by Judge Forrest prevents the enforcement of the statute provision, pending further order of the court or an amendment to the statute by the US Congress.
Related articles
- RT: Ron Paul pleads with supporters to fight CISPA and Internet censorship (jhaines6.wordpress.com)
- NDAA in court over indefinite detention of Americans (rt.com)
Arka, I am with you in this. `my first gut feel was: no no no. 1% trying something new.
Vickie and Rev Joe, that is what they (the elite) want us to believe . They know now that they (the elite) will be arrested under that law as it applies to all. The fact that this judge has decided to stop it, is an obvious proof. That judge knows and wants to protect the 1%.
Arka, Vickie, Brigitte, I see this differently from the three of you. I sense this judge is an honest judge, who has found the courage to step to the line on this. It’s rather obvious that the walls are crumbling around the 1%, and I think it’s likely that he is finding the courage to speak the ‘real’ truth. There are lots of honest people sitting as judges, and I’m sure they really do want to do their job – and this judge may just be one of those people. I think this is one more example that the 1% is losing its grip on just about everything! Hugs, ~Jean
Great news . This time the judiciary works for ” we the people ” .
Hugs to All .
Rev . Joe
Thank goodness someone is paying attention here. This judge is my hero for the day……………or longer!
dang people, we need that to arrest the bad guys. quick, everybuddy envision it being brought back.