Judge Upholds Ban on NDAA Detentions

Judge Upholds Ban on NDAA Detentions

news.antiwar.com

Judge Katherine Forest has upheld her previous ban on the use of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) provisions that allowed the president to summarily detain “terror suspects” in military custody for indefinite periods of time with no legal oversight.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.salon.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Federal court enjoins NDAA
Disappeared under NDAA? This is what will happen to you

The June 6th Ruling can be read here:
www.documentcloud.org...

Judge Forest insists that the ruling is not restricted to just keeping Ellsberg, et al. out of the brig,
and that she was declaring the whole provision regarding summary detention outside of the
9/11 attackers unconstitutional.

Upholding that the NDAA violates ”both their free speech and associational rights guaranteed
by the First Amendment as well as due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the
United States Constitution.”

CHRISTOPHER HEDGES, DANIEL ELLSBERG, JENNIFER BOLEN, NOAM CHOMSKY, ALEXA O’BRIEN, US DAY OF RAGE, KAI WARG
ALLA, HON. BRIGITTA JONSDOTTIR M.P.,
Plaintiffs,
-v-
BARACK OBAMA, individually and as representative of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; LEON PANETTA, individually and in his capacity as the executive and representative of the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, JOHN MCCAIN, JOHN BOEHNER, HARRY REID, NANCY PELOSI, MITCH MCCONNELL, ERIC CANTOR as representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, sdnyblog.com...

Kudos to this Judge, she shows an amazing amount of
courage to rule in the favor of the constitution.

news.antiwar.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

star and flag OP
You have a really good sense of what is important
as America goes so goes the world
and the NDAA make the US the battlefield

reply to post by burntheships

Kudos to this Judge, she shows an amazing amount of courage to rule in the favor of the constitution.

Sad it has come this far huh?
Voting in favor off the constitution is seen as a heroic act.

Yet it should be the guideline for all decisions made.

reply to post by Danbones



I have to say it again, this is one brave judge..
And Kudos to Ellsberg and Chomsky for
standing up too, with the filing.

news.antiwar.com...

reply to post by burntheships


Kudos to her....taking back America inch by inch....

Des

reply to post by kn0wh0w


The constitution is outdated and it is not worth clinging to it anymore. How would you like it if we judged you by medieval law? of course you would not like it.

I say kudos to this judge too!

It is sad that it's seen as a heroic act though. To vote in FAVOR of the constitution.

But S&F for this BTS, it's nice to see

Originally posted by QQXXw
reply to post by kn0wh0w

 

The constitution is outdated and it is not worth clinging to it anymore. How would you like it if we judged you by medieval law? of course you would not like it.

QQXXw, this is such a narrow view it's crazy. If, in medieval times it were considered that murder were illegal and punishable in some form or another, you think that should be repealed simply because the law is old?

Originally posted by QQXXw
reply to post by kn0wh0w

 

The constitution is outdated and it is not worth clinging to it anymore. How would you like it if we judged you by medieval law? of course you would not like it.

If you consider the Constitution to be outdated, in what way would you change it? How, in your opinion, could it be improved?

You were brave enough to be the only one (so far) in this thread to walk against the tide that i would be very interested in reading your opinions on what changes you think could/should be made, whether it should be tossed altogether and, if so, with what would you replace it, etc.

Thank you for your response.

reply to post by QQXXw


Until you write one better- I will stick to the Constitution

You dont like it? Start your own country and make laws to make sure everyone gets lollipops.

Originally posted by QQXXw
reply to post by kn0wh0w

 

The constitution is outdated and it is not worth clinging to it anymore. How would you like it if we judged you by medieval law? of course you would not like it.

the constitution was created so we don't have to judge people by medieval law

reply to post by QQXXw


exactly wich part is outdated?

the part that garantees your right to a trail?

the part that garantees your right to bear arms?

the part that is supposed to limit the federal governments power?

the part that protects freedom of speach?

the part that prohibits excessive fines and the likes?

which part is medieval and obsolete?

enlighten me

silly you

If you do not like living under the US Constitution... Get out of the US!!!! We are the only nation that has laws that protect your freedom... even though some try to take that away, we do have Judges that stand up for our rights and freedoms.
S&F to the OP

reply to post by kn0wh0w


Star to you as this was my exact thought as well.

Originally posted by QQXXw
reply to post by kn0wh0w

 

The constitution is outdated and it is not worth clinging to it anymore. How would you like it if we judged you by medieval law? of course you would not like it.

You've never read American history...have you.....

If you don't already reside in another country, I suggest you move to one, post haste. We Americans, are fed up with viewpoints like yours. You won't like our Country after we get through taking it back.

Des

Originally posted by kn0wh0w
reply to post by burntheships

 

Sad it has come this far huh?
Voting in favor off the constitution is seen as a heroic act.

Yes so true.

What is further noteable,
The judge also rejected Obamas "signing statement"

The court also decisively rejected the argument that President Obama’s signing statement
– expressing limits on how he intends to exercise the NDAA’s detention powers —
solves any of these problems. That’s because, said the court, the signing statement “does not state that § 1021 of the NDAA will not be applied to otherwise-protected First Amendment speech nor does it give concrete definitions to the vague terms used in the statute.” www.salon.com...

www.whitehouse.gov...

This judge is one smart lady!

reply to post by QQXXw


Yep, it is outdated.

But unlike you, I'm going to present a new one:

WE THE OLIGARCHY...



What a stupid comment.

reply to post by QQXXw


What do you know, you echo the POTUS near verbatim.

Obama Signs NDAA



www.youtube.com...

reply to post by QQXXw


I have yet to read a single person who could argue a reasoned argument as to why or how the Constitution for the United States of America is "outdated" or "flawed", but worse than that I read way too much of the nonsense you have spewed. Not even a single attempt to offer a reasoned argument as to why you believe the Constitution is "outdated" just a regurgitation as if vomiting an opinion is all that is needed.

reply to post by QQXXw


Have you ever heard of a thing called an "Amendment"???? Good try, now go report back to your handlers that you have been STOMPED on in this thread by........oh lets see................EVERYONE!



I am really enjoying these threads where Judges are just blatantly stomping on these people that are trying to ruin the constitution! Good job to her! Now if only we can get the rest of them to follow the correct path!