US judge blocks indefinite detention of Americans

page: 1
21
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   

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.


Full story here.


Recent related thread by RSF77:
"Ron Paul, Adam Smith Push To End Indefinite Detention Of Americans".
edit on 16/5/2012 by PinkAndBlack because: fnord




posted on May, 16 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by PinkAndBlack
 


Quite an interesting turn of events don't you say?



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
this is the start of something,
the court finds it unconstitutional,

how does some one pass unconstitutional laws without breaking the law?

xploder



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by PinkAndBlack
 


There goes his career.

He will probably end up in jail for some pedophile charge now ro even have a little car accident.

At least this one judge tried!!!



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by RSF77
 


I do say. Never would have seen this coming. I'm interested for this news to pick up a bit & hear what others have to say. Hopefully this will get to dialog ball rollin a bit more on this $#!T law.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 

I asked the same thing in the Poli-Sci course this year. The answer I got was what I imagine we're seeing played out. Congress and the President aren't required to do more than give rationale or be able to justify what they're doing in the broader context. Pelosi laughed at the reporters who asked for even that much on the Healthcare bill.

Being correct is entirely unnecessary and they know it. Everything they pass is Constitutional until a court says it isn't and they bet on most things never being pushed far enough or getting the wrong judge to toss out. heck of a way to run a nation, isn't it?



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
I know posts should be profound, but I had to say it:

Good for you Mr. Judge, it's nice to see someone in your position still respects the rights and liberities this nation was founded on. Way not to fold, we need like, 200 more like you and maybe we can start fixing this cluster bomb.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Guess what happened just before this:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It may or may not have something to do with Ron Paul, oh yea... and his supporters.
edit on 16-5-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by RSF77
 


And just in time for the NATO/G8 summit. Hopefully this news will encourage more people to get out & exercise their first amendment rights in Chicago.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by PinkAndBlack
reply to post by RSF77
 


And just in time for the NATO/G8 summit. Hopefully this news will encourage more people to get out & exercise their first amendment rights in Chicago.


I'm sorry but I really wish people would at least research things. This isn't a personal attack on you specifically but more or less everyone who mentions the G8. It is NOT going to be in Chicago. It is going to be in Thurmont MD at Camp David. Right in my back yard really. Please spread the word for me round ATS get the fa ts straight.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Sorry double post
edit on 16-5-2012 by guesswhoyouknew because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
this is the start of something,
the court finds it unconstitutional,

how does some one pass unconstitutional laws without breaking the law?

xploder


Any law passed is constitutional until the court says otherwise.

I called this when it first came to light.. The courts would say no to it and low and behold, they did.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by XPLodER
this is the start of something,
the court finds it unconstitutional,

how does some one pass unconstitutional laws without breaking the law?

xploder


Any law passed is constitutional until the court says otherwise.

I called this when it first came to light.. The courts would say no to it and low and behold, they did.


does this mean OTHER COUNTRIES are now safe from kidnapping and indefinite detention?
yay

or do we have to be IN america to be safe from kidnapping and indefinate detension?

i like victories when it means the rule of law must be followed,
and i congratulate you on being correct (for the mean time)

would like a president set for this tho

xploder



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by guesswhoyouknew

Originally posted by PinkAndBlack
reply to post by RSF77
 


And just in time for the NATO/G8 summit. Hopefully this news will encourage more people to get out & exercise their first amendment rights in Chicago.


I'm sorry but I really wish people would at least research things. This isn't a personal attack on you specifically but more or less everyone who mentions the G8. It is NOT going to be in Chicago. It is going to be in Thurmont MD at Camp David. Right in my back yard really. Please spread the word for me round ATS get the fa ts straight.


"This isn't a personal attack on you specifically BUT..." Yes Obama moved the G8 summit to Camp David, but people are still protesting it in Chicago as well as the NATO summit. I'm not your butler so please spread the word yourself if you're so concerned about people getting the "fa ts" straight.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by RSF77
 


Sorry, it doesn't.


A coalition of well-known journalists, activists and civil libertarians have sued President Obama, Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr., Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and other members of the U.S. government to push them to remove or rewrite this year’s defense appropriations bill, saying it chills speech by threatening constitutionally protected activities such as news reporting, protest and political organizing in defense of controversial causes such as the Wikileaks case.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which was launched by former New York Times foreign correspondent Chris Hedges, claim that the new provisions, which went into effect March 1, not only put them at risk of arrest but also allows indefinite detentions of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, and that the provisions are too vague.

Environmentalists have also registered their opposition. In light of many prosecutions of U.S. environmental activists under ramped-up terror laws in the past six years, many fear the new law will be used against them.

“My activities as a civil liberties, democracy advocate and independent journalist definitely leave me under the purview of the vague language of the NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act],” says Jennifer “Tangerine” Bolen, one of seven current plaintiffs, along with Hedges, in the suit. A host of live panel discussions with what she calls “activists and revolutionaries” as part of independent media outlet Revolution Truth, Bolen has had ongoing contact with Wikileaks activists in an effort to get information to the public.

“I believe that could leave me in imminent danger of harm,” she says. “There was a global, trans-partisan, outpouring of distress over Obama signing the NDAA into law on Dec. 31, 2011, and I decided I had to do something.”

Plaintiffs include Hedges, Bolen, scholar Noam Chomsky, Icelandic member of parliament Birgitta Jonsdottir and Kai Wargalla, both of Revolution Truth, Alexa O’Brien of U.S. Day of Rage, and “Pentagon Papers” activist Daniel Ellsberg.


latimes



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   


In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution


+

Indefinite detention

=



All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. – Marbury vs Madison



edit on 16-5-2012 by METACOMET because: qt



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Once again, the Judges prove that they are capable of integrity, whereas the Congress consistently has none whatsoever.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
does this mean OTHER COUNTRIES are now safe from kidnapping and indefinite detention?
yay

Nope - also where is kidnapping coming from?


Originally posted by XPLodER
or do we have to be IN america to be safe from kidnapping and indefinate detension?

Good question.. For now im going to guess the ruling applies to US citizens worldwide. The only exception I can see is if Americans decide to join up with say the taliban and are then captured (which has occured a few times however people are not remebering).



Originally posted by XPLodER
i like victories when it means the rule of law must be followed,
and i congratulate you on being correct (for the mean time)

The justice system is slow and for good reason. Personally I would rather be in somewhat of a limbo rather than have the court system rush to a ruling without adequately researching the issues involved and the effect they have.

As far as the congrats goes its not needed since I didnt post the comment to rub it in or come across as an ass.



Originally posted by XPLodER
would like a president set for this tho

xploder

The court ruling we have now set a precedent. What we do now is wait and see how this winds through the courts.I still maintain that the courts are not going to uphold it. The other precedent set is the Jose Padilla case. He was arrested for being a part of 9/11. He is a US citizen and for a short time was held by the military under the MCA of 2006.

The ruling in that case destroyed the argument about holding and trying US citizens by military tribunals / UCMJ. That ruling transfered Jose Padilla back into the federal civilian criminal system.For the time being I would also argue posse commitatus prohibits active military from engaging in civilian law enforcement functions.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Great find, op...





new topics

top topics



 
21
<<   2 >>

log in

join