Military Detention law blocked by New York Judge for now anyway

[rojawe]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-16/military-detention-law-blocked-by-new-york-judge.html Excuse me why did a Federal judge rule against it if since you think you have all the answers. I guess he just like to block things you don't think applies to Americans.
Pardon me but I'll take the judges opinion over yours.
Tom you are full of crap and maybe you should take your tinfoil off and what is your credit on this subject beside BS

[santahog]

Military Detention Law Blocked by New York Judge

By Bob Van Voris and Patricia Hurtado - May 16, 2012 11:01 PM CT
.
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).

To contact the reporters on this story: Bob Van Voris in Manhattan federal court at rvanvoris@bloomberg.net; Patricia Hurtado in Manhattan federal court at phurtado@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net.


More News:
Law  ·
U.S.  ·
White House


+++++++++++++++++

This Judge is obviously a career minded politician who has clearly never read the provisions.
Sheesh.. Some people..

[tombogan03884]

What part of this is so damned difficult for the tin foil tools to understand ?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s1867/text

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

    (a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

        (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

        (2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--

            (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

            (B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

        (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

        (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

    (b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

        (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

        (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

    (c) Implementation Procedures-

        (1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

        (2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:

            (A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.

            (B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.

            (C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.

            (D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.

            (E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.

    (d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.

[jnevis]

It's pointless to even try Tom.
The "Tin Foil crowd" are like talking to liberals, facts don't matter, only headlines.

[tombogan03884]

It's pointless to even try Tom.
The "Tin Foil crowd" are like talking to liberals, facts don't matter, only headlines.

Yeah, I know.
Between the 2 of us we've only posted the exact text about a dozen times.
Some people just don't get it.
I recently read something to the effect that a large portion of the population are so deeply brainwashed that their brains are unable to process information that contradicts their programing.
I wish I could remember where I read it as I would like to post a link to the study.

[Sponsor]

[santahog]

The bait worked..

I copied out the text of the link on the OP.
The link by itself got nothing. No ranting. No screaming. Nothing.
I think it's me.. If a Judge in NY says it might be a problem worth looking at, nothing.. Me, now that's a problem..
Good to know nobody has lost their objectivity here..

Here's some more political opportunism for you to ignore, save for my bringing it up..
http://frontporchpolitics.com/2012/05/house-oks-indefinite-detention/
I'll have you on ulcer meds by the 4th..

[tombogan03884]

It's not you, it's repetitive stupidity that annoys me.
It just happens to come from you more frequently.

[santahog]

What tickles me is all the other conspiratorial crap that seems to ring just as true as this does, (for all the smoke that it continues to generate) that you don't take issue with. Just this one..
I don't want to get into too much of a retort on this one, just because it's not that entertaining, but I'm just as confident that some schmuch in NH isn't privy to all the non-public facts anymore than you're convinced that some schmuck in AL is.
If it isn't true, we'll be screwing with each other over this till one of us gets tired of it.
If it is true, (I mean the things that aren't so very public, that you seem to deny the existance of), there may not be much warning for one to give to the other..
I hope you're right..
I look around and I'm not seeing the same attitude being doled out to others on the topic. You proved my point tonight.. With all the bluster, I would have expected your crusade against ignorance to be more universal. I'm not seeing it..
When egoes take over, the harder you run your mouth today, the harder it kicks your ass tomorrow. I'll wait..

[tombogan03884]

What tickles me is all the other conspiratorial crap that seems to ring just as true as this does, (for all the smoke that it continues to generate) that you don't take issue with. Just this one..
I don't want to get into too much of a retort on this one, just because it's not that entertaining, but I'm just as confident that some schmuch in NH isn't privy to all the non-public facts anymore than you're convinced that some schmuck in AL is.
If it isn't true, we'll be screwing with each other over this till one of us gets tired of it.
If it is true, (I mean the things that aren't so very public, that you seem to deny the existance of), there may not be much warning for one to give to the other..
I hope you're right..
I look around and I'm not seeing the same attitude being doled out to others on the topic. You proved my point tonight.. With all the bluster, I would have expected your crusade against ignorance to be more universal. I'm not seeing it..
When egoes take over, the harder you run your mouth today, the harder it kicks your ass tomorrow. I'll wait..

The highlighted part shows you ignorance. If some one takes the trouble to inform themselves they don't need the "non public facts"
Lenin wrote about it in the 20's, Churchill wrote about it starting in the 20's, the John Birch society has been trying to warn you since the 40's.
Hitler told the world exactly what he planned to do but the world was to stupid to take him at his word, the socialists have been doing it for much longer, and again the world buries it's head.
They want to vote for feel good Dems that say "We'll take from the rich" instead of those mean old Conservatives who say "You need to earn it".
Why do you think credit cards are so popular ?
Because the sheep want it NOW with out having to work to earn it.

The difference between me and you is that I've been following this stuff since the 60's and saying the same things since the 70's.
Long before it was cool.

[Solus]

Shut Up, Tom!!

I got a good buy on a truck load of Reynolds Wrap and YOU are not going to tell me how I can use it.