Federal court enjoins NDAAAn Obama-appointed judge rules its indefinite detention provisions likely violate the 1st and 5th Amendments
BY GLENN GREENWALD
May. 17, 2012
1.WATCH: Germans Shut Down Leftist Minister's Pro-Migrant Speech & Chase Him Down In The Streets
2.Russians Blow Up Illegal Muslim Prayer Hall After Finding Explosives Inside
3.WATCH: 'In the Name of the Profit' - Russia Exposes Turkey's 'Cozy Relations' With ISIS
4.WATCH: Mexican Kids At Anti-Trump Protest Scream "F*ck You" & Flick Off Trump Supporters
5.WATCH: Trump Supporter Calls "Lyin' Ted" a Liar to His Face, Cruz Responds by Lying to Him
6.VIDEO: Crazed Feminists Harass Man For Filming "Whiteness History Month" Presentation
7.ADL Targets Trump: Saying "America First" is Anti-Semitic
8.'Violation of Sovereignty': Moscow Slams Obama Decision to Send 250 More US Troops to Syria
A federal district judge today, the newly-appointed Katherine Forrest of the Southern District of New York, issued an amazing ruling: one which preliminarily enjoins enforcement of the highly controversial indefinite provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act, enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Obama last December. This afternoon’s ruling came as part of a lawsuit brought by seven dissident plaintiffs — including Chris Hedges, Dan Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky, and Brigitta Jonsdottir — alleging 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.”
The ruling was a sweeping victory for the plaintiffs, as it rejected each of the Obama DOJ’s three arguments: (1) because none of the plaintiffs has yet been indefinitely detained, they lack “standing” to challenge the statute; (2) even if they have standing, the lack of imminent enforcement against them renders injunctive relief unnecessary; and (3) the NDAA creates no new detention powers beyond what the 2001 AUMF already provides.
As for the DOJ’s first argument — lack of standing — the court found that the plaintiffs are already suffering substantial injury from the reasonable fear that they could be indefinitely detained under section 1021 of the NDAA as a result of their constitutionally protected activities.