Tweet
Judge Strikes Down Indefinite Detention in NDAA
A federal judge has struck down part of a controversial law that allows the government to indefinitely detain anyone it considers a terrorism suspect anywhere in the world without charge or trial, including U.S. citizens. The ruling came in a lawsuit challenging the National Defense Authorization Act or NDAA filed by a group of journalists, scholars and political activists. Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern District of New York struck down the indefinite detention provision, saying it likely violates the First and Fifth Amendments. Judge Forrest rejected the Obama administration’s argument that the NDAA merely reaffirmed an existing law recognizing the military’s right to perform certain routine duties.
Federal judge blocks NDAA
Deborah Dupre
Judge granted relief to Chris Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg and others of the Freedom Seven seeking temporary restraining order vs. NDAA
A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction to the Freedom Seven late Wednesday to block the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2012 provisions that would allow the military to indefinitely detain anyone it accuses of knowingly or unknowingly supporting terrorism. Leading the Freedom Seven is Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges who filed the NDAA military force lawsuit against Barack Obama in January.
"There is a strong public interest in protecting rights guaranteed by the First Amendment," wrote U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest on Wednesday, according to Courthouse News.
"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."
Advertisement
On New Year's Eve, President Barack Obama signed the 565-page NDAA 2012 containing a short paragraph, in statute 1021, giving the military authority to detain anyone it suspects "substantially supported" al-Qaida, the Taliban or "associated forces." The indefinite detention would supposedly last until "the end of hostilities."
In flagrant breach of the U.S. Constitution and human rights, particularly Article 9 of the Declaration of Human Rights, Obama insisted that the NDAA 2012 contain that provision, as revealed by Senator Levin on the Senate Floor.
Weeks after Obama signed the law, Hedges, author of American Fascists who delivered the historical soliloquy in 2010 in front of the White House that kick-started the Occupy Movement, filed a lawsuit against its so-called "Homeland Battlefield" provisions.
Several prominent human rights defender scholars, politicians and activists subsequently joined the suit: Pentagon Papers whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg; Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Noam Chomsky; Icelandic parliamentarian Birgitta Jonsdottir; Kai Wargalla, an organizer from Occupy London; and Alexa O'Brien, organizer for the New York-based activist group U.S. Day of Rage.
They call themselves the Freedom Seven.
"Judge Forrest took aim at government arguments that the NDAA did not affect Hedges and his co-plaintiffs personally," Courthouse News reported about journalists fearing detention.
"Here, the uncontradicted testimony at the evidentiary hearing was that the plaintiffs have in fact lost certain First Amendment freedoms as a result of the enactment of § 1021," Forrest wrote.
At a March hearing, three of the plaintiffs testified that the possibility of government repression under the NDAA made them reconsider how they approached their journalism and activism.
Naomi Wolf, a journalist for The Guardian, read testimony from Jonsditir, who prepared a statement saying that she would not visit the U.S. for fear of detention. Forrest referred to this testimony in her decision.
"Hedges, Wargalla, and Jonsdottir have changed certain associational conduct, and O'Brien and Jonsdittir have avoided certain expressive conduct, because of their concerns about § 1021. Moreover, since plaintiffs continue to have their associational and expressive conduct chilled, there is both actual and continued threatened irreparable harm," Forest wrote.
"In addition, it is certainly the case that if plaintiffs were detained as a result of their conduct, they could be detained until the cessation of hostilities - i.e., an indeterminate period of time.
"Being subjected to the risk of such detention, particularly in light of the Government's inability to represent that plaintiffs' conduct does not fall with § 1021, must constitute a threat of irreparable harm. The question then is: Is that harm immediate?
"Since the Government will not say that the conduct does not fall outside of §1021, one cannot predict immediacy one way or the other. The penalty we know would be severe."
In June, noted human rights group spokesperson Andrea Prasow stated that the military detention provision, secretly authored by John McCain, Carl Levin and Lindsey Graham and secretly passed by the Senate Armed Services Committee, is what martial-law states, not democracies do.
Courthouse News reports, "The judge added that she did not make the decision lightly."
Journalist Don DeBar will interview the attorney for plaintiffs on www.CPRmetro.org at 8:15am EDT today.
A federal judge has struck down part of a controversial law that allows the government to indefinitely detain anyone it considers a terrorism suspect anywhere in the world without charge or trial, including U.S. citizens. The ruling came in a lawsuit challenging the National Defense Authorization Act or NDAA filed by a group of journalists, scholars and political activists. Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern District of New York struck down the indefinite detention provision, saying it likely violates the First and Fifth Amendments. Judge Forrest rejected the Obama administration’s argument that the NDAA merely reaffirmed an existing law recognizing the military’s right to perform certain routine duties.
Federal judge blocks NDAA
Deborah Dupre
Judge granted relief to Chris Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg and others of the Freedom Seven seeking temporary restraining order vs. NDAA
A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction to the Freedom Seven late Wednesday to block the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2012 provisions that would allow the military to indefinitely detain anyone it accuses of knowingly or unknowingly supporting terrorism. Leading the Freedom Seven is Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges who filed the NDAA military force lawsuit against Barack Obama in January.
"There is a strong public interest in protecting rights guaranteed by the First Amendment," wrote U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest on Wednesday, according to Courthouse News.
"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."
Advertisement
On New Year's Eve, President Barack Obama signed the 565-page NDAA 2012 containing a short paragraph, in statute 1021, giving the military authority to detain anyone it suspects "substantially supported" al-Qaida, the Taliban or "associated forces." The indefinite detention would supposedly last until "the end of hostilities."
In flagrant breach of the U.S. Constitution and human rights, particularly Article 9 of the Declaration of Human Rights, Obama insisted that the NDAA 2012 contain that provision, as revealed by Senator Levin on the Senate Floor.
Weeks after Obama signed the law, Hedges, author of American Fascists who delivered the historical soliloquy in 2010 in front of the White House that kick-started the Occupy Movement, filed a lawsuit against its so-called "Homeland Battlefield" provisions.
Several prominent human rights defender scholars, politicians and activists subsequently joined the suit: Pentagon Papers whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg; Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Noam Chomsky; Icelandic parliamentarian Birgitta Jonsdottir; Kai Wargalla, an organizer from Occupy London; and Alexa O'Brien, organizer for the New York-based activist group U.S. Day of Rage.
They call themselves the Freedom Seven.
"Judge Forrest took aim at government arguments that the NDAA did not affect Hedges and his co-plaintiffs personally," Courthouse News reported about journalists fearing detention.
"Here, the uncontradicted testimony at the evidentiary hearing was that the plaintiffs have in fact lost certain First Amendment freedoms as a result of the enactment of § 1021," Forrest wrote.
At a March hearing, three of the plaintiffs testified that the possibility of government repression under the NDAA made them reconsider how they approached their journalism and activism.
Naomi Wolf, a journalist for The Guardian, read testimony from Jonsditir, who prepared a statement saying that she would not visit the U.S. for fear of detention. Forrest referred to this testimony in her decision.
"Hedges, Wargalla, and Jonsdottir have changed certain associational conduct, and O'Brien and Jonsdittir have avoided certain expressive conduct, because of their concerns about § 1021. Moreover, since plaintiffs continue to have their associational and expressive conduct chilled, there is both actual and continued threatened irreparable harm," Forest wrote.
"In addition, it is certainly the case that if plaintiffs were detained as a result of their conduct, they could be detained until the cessation of hostilities - i.e., an indeterminate period of time.
"Being subjected to the risk of such detention, particularly in light of the Government's inability to represent that plaintiffs' conduct does not fall with § 1021, must constitute a threat of irreparable harm. The question then is: Is that harm immediate?
"Since the Government will not say that the conduct does not fall outside of §1021, one cannot predict immediacy one way or the other. The penalty we know would be severe."
In June, noted human rights group spokesperson Andrea Prasow stated that the military detention provision, secretly authored by John McCain, Carl Levin and Lindsey Graham and secretly passed by the Senate Armed Services Committee, is what martial-law states, not democracies do.
Courthouse News reports, "The judge added that she did not make the decision lightly."
Journalist Don DeBar will interview the attorney for plaintiffs on www.CPRmetro.org at 8:15am EDT today.
