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.The Huffington Post Is What Happens When There's No Men In The Room
2.Angry Birds Movie is Red-Pilled Anti-Immigration Propaganda
3.The Guardian's Steven Thrasher Plays Victim After His Anti-White Hate Video Goes Viral
4.Hungary PM: Clinton is George Soros Puppet, Wants to Overrun EU With Millions of Muslims
5.You Won't Believe Michelle Fields' Brilliant Advice to the Hillary Campaign
6.LA Senate Passes Total Gun Ban After Radical Muslims They Let In Killed People
7.The Guardian: 'Revolution' Possible in 2043 When Whites Become Minority in U.S.
8.WATCH: Germany's New Right Leader Schools Brainwashed Young Leftists
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.