Federal Judge Enjoins Section 1021 - FY2012 NDAA - [Blocking indefinite detention of US citizens]
Article, then # 5 , # 6 .
.
Posted on 05/16/2012 7:03:24 PM PDT by Fitzy_888
Out today, a 68-page opinion from Judge Katherine Forrest of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, entering a preliminary injunction barring the federal government from enforcing the substantive detention authority codified by the FY2012 NDAA on the ground that enforcement of the relevant provision (section 1021) might interfere with the plaintiffs’ First and Fifth Amendment rights. There’s a lot here, including the central holding (that the NDAA is not merely a “reaffirmation” of the AUMF), but I haven’t had the chance to read it carefully yet. Suffice it to say, I imagine folks will have more to say about the ruling in Hedges v. Obama over the next few days…
(Excerpt) Read more at lawfareblog.com ...
So the government can still hold someone, let them go, arrest them again, let them go, etc. Or at least I would think. Courts can only act after the fact with a determined executive or be ignored as Andrew Jackson did with the Cherokee removal.
This is pretty much as designed since the executive is the real active branch of our government.
It is a well-written and sound decision. The gubmint did not try very hard to uphold it. The judge argues well that it is vague and ununforceable and to the extent it would have conferred any powers those powers exist in other statutes so enjoining this subjection does not do much.
I have to agree with the judge, easily, on this one.
One heck of a lot of our civil rights were lost with the Patriot Act and associated legislation. In wartime, for a brief while, understandable.
But what is intolerable is when you see that the vast majority of these “anti-terrorism” laws have *not* been applied against terrorists by the 100+ federal police and 16 major US intelligence agencies; but *only* against American citizens not even suspected of having any involvement in terrorism at all.
And they are being applied not *just* by the federals, but by state and local police as well.
Truthfully, there is zero relation between terrorism and a SWAT team breaking down your door without a warrant, shooting your dog, scaring your family half to death and trashing your house because you did not pay a traffic fine you didn’t even know you owed.
Except it is the government that is acting like terrorists.
This NDAA crapola is just the latest abuse. If anyone thinks that this would be used exclusively, or even a lot, against terrorists, you are fooling yourself. Whoever it would be used against, it would mean the US Army breaking down their door and arresting them, just because some scoundrel like Attorney General Holder doesn’t like them.
Terrorists are not impacted at all when authoritarian laws are used against Americans. The only beneficiaries of such laws are government bureaucrats obsessed with the desire to have power and control over their fellow citizens.
Unfortunately true.
Obama and his thugs have ignored court rulings all along. No reason to think they would honor this one.
When he has you in solitary and refuses to acknowledge that you are even in custody, fat lot of good a court ruling will do. Has happened many times in the past in some countries (Central & South America, Eastern block come to mind). People disappear. Courts are impotent.
Many know it, very few will admit it out loud; there is likely only one sort of action by the American people that will stop this 3rd world despotism. Will the frog(s) jump out of the pot before it boils?
Our system of government only works as long as [there is at least a presumption that] the three branches are willing to follow the rules. That is not the case now.
Its about damn time that something was done right.
Freedom means something and once in a while, someone does something to make it seem meaningful again.
How soon does this judge disappear down the memory hole?
The thing that surprises me, is that the case was heard. Who had standing? Was this law actually applied to someone, so they could claim they were actually harmed by the law?
Sometimes I think the standing rules prevent justice more than they help declutter court cases.
Federal Judge Enjoins Section 1021 - FY2012 NDAA - [Blocking indefinite detention of US citizens]
Article, then # 5 , # 6 .
.
How would we ever know whom it was applied too? They can disappear you without due process for an indefinite term.
It’s a given, if you have disappeared via rendition to an already existing facility in Poland -you won’t likely be filing a civil rights claim.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.