Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 17th, 2012, 07:20 PM   #1
Senior Member
imaginethat's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 53,291
The American press isn't parading the decision handed down on this lawsuit much. In fact, the silence of the MSM is deafening.

Military Detention Law Blocked By New York Judge

By Bob Van Voris and Patricia Hurtado - May 16, 2012 10:01 PM MT
  • Opponents of a U.S. law they claim may subject them to indefinite military detention for activities including news reporting and political activism persuaded a federal judge to temporarily block the measure.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan yesterday ruled in favor of a group of writers and activists who sued President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the Defense Department, claiming a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law Dec. 31, puts them in fear that they could be arrested and held by U.S. armed forces.

The complaint was filed Jan. 13 by a group including former New York Times reporter Christopher Hedges. The plaintiffs contend a section of the law allows for detention of citizens and permanent residents taken into custody in the U.S. on “suspicion of providing substantial support” to people engaged in hostilities against the U.S., such as al-Qaeda.

“The statute at issue places the public at undue risk of having their speech chilled for the purported protection from al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and ‘associated forces’ - i.e., ‘foreign terrorist organizations,’” Forrest said in an opinion yesterday. “The vagueness of Section 1021 does not allow the average citizen, or even the government itself, to understand with the type of definiteness to which our citizens are entitled, or what conduct comes within its scope.”

Enforcement Blocked

Forrest’s order prevents enforcement of the provision of the statute pending further order of the court or an amendment to the statute by Congress.

Ellen Davis, a spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara in Manhattan, declined to comment on the ruling.

The plaintiffs claim Section 1021 is vague and can be read to authorize their detention based on speech and associations that are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Hedges and two other plaintiffs testified in a hearing before Forrest in March, the judge said. A fourth plaintiff submitted a sworn declaration. The government put on no evidence, Forrest said.

Forrest, an Obama appointee who has served on the Manhattan federal court since October, rejected the government’s arguments that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue over the law and that it merely reaffirmed provisions in an earlier law, the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which was passed in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Plaintiffs’ Activities

In her opinion, Forrest said the government declined to say that the activities of Hedges and the other defendants don’t fall under the provision. Forrest held a hearing in March at which government lawyers didn’t call any witnesses or present evidence, according to the judge. The government did cross- examine the plaintiffs who testified and submitted legal arguments.

“The government was given a number of opportunities at the hearing and in its briefs to state unambiguously that the type of expressive and associational activities engaged in by plaintiffs -- or others -- are not within Section 1021,” Forrest said. “It did not. This court therefore must credit the chilling impact on First Amendment rights as reasonable -- and real.”

Hedges, who testified he has been a foreign news correspondent for 20 years, said he has reported on 17 groups that are on a State Department list of terrorist groups. Hedges testified that after the law was passed, he changed his dealings with groups he had reported on, Forrest said.

“I think the ruling was not only correct, but courageous and important,” Hedges said in a telephone interview yesterday.

The case is Hedges v. Obama, 12-cv-00331, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York(Manhattan).

imaginethat is offline  
Old May 17th, 2012, 07:46 PM   #2
An Awesome Dude
Dude111's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,443
I bet Obama is pi$$ed!
Dude111 is offline  
Old May 17th, 2012, 10:11 PM   #3
Senior Member
imaginethat's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 53,291
Originally Posted by Dude111 View Post
I bet Obama is pi$$ed!

Imo, Obama had no choice but to sign the bill, and I mean that in the most conspiratorial way possible.

The Military-Industrial Complex has had more than 60 years to sharpen its swords. Pretty sharp.
imaginethat is offline  

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

blocked, detention, judge, law, military, york

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gop Have Blocked A Democratic Measure To Extend The Payroll Tax Cut tristanrobin Current Events 96 December 15th, 2011 05:24 AM
Now a Liberal Judge wants to run the Military garysher Warfare 101 November 12th, 2010 06:46 AM
I.C.E. detention centres all over usa!! intangible child Crime and Punishment 0 December 26th, 2009 01:04 PM
alt.blocked: Verizon blocks access to whole USENET hierarchy tadpole256 Science and Technology 8 June 16th, 2008 06:47 PM
Fema Detention Camps Lucidthots Warfare 1 September 18th, 2006 12:47 PM

Facebook Twitter RSS Feed

Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.