Military detention law blocked by NY Judge

[KG1]

NDAA detention provision blocked by NY Judge

Looks like NY US District Judge Katherine Forrest has weighed in on the controversial NDAA law and put a temporary block on any enforcement of the military detention clause on the basis that it could potentially conflict with 1A rights.

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.

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

Military Detention Law Blocked by New York Judge - Bloomberg

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Dude, you beat me.

 

[KG1]

Dude, you beat me.

I had to work fast when I saw it. That's why I had to do an edit afterwards because I just wanted to get the thread posted.

Gotta be quick around here to avoid the dreaded Dupe.

 

[9mmfan]

Finally, one federal judge in the country who has a lick of common sense.

 

[Kagnew]

Oh, bully for her.

Sedition: “suspicion of providing substantial support” to people engaged in hostilities against the U.S.

Seems that I do recall something about "support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic".

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

Im absolutely shocked ..... mainly that it was done by a NY judge

 

[jamil]

"She said the law also gave the government authority to move against individuals who engage in political speech with views that "may be extreme and unpopular as measured against views of an average individual."

You mean they missed their opportunity to lock up Ron Paul and his supporters?

 

[Pocketman]

The judge is an Obama appointee.

 

[rambone]

Oh, bully for her.

Sedition: “suspicion of providing substantial support” to people engaged in hostilities against the U.S.

Seems that I do recall something about "support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic".

You actually support this travesty??

 

[88GT]

Oh, bully for her.

Sedition: “suspicion of providing substantial support” to people engaged in hostilities against the U.S.

Seems that I do recall something about "support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic".

Try again. There is no "suspicion" component in the definition of sedition.

 

[KG1]

Try again. There is no "suspicion" component in the definition of sedition.

Good catch. Knock off the "suspicion of" and it would fit.

I think that's the problem with this whole Military detention thing. Alot of people have a fear of being caught up and detained indefinitely just for being "suspected of" and they feel that it could be a catch-all for the Government to be able to snatch you up and whisk you away to a Military detention camp.

The claim is all they have to do is say "We suspect you of aiding and abetting"

 

[dlbrown75]

Where's all the ingo members who said ndaa was no big deal and we who thought so were just wearing our tin foil hats? Wasn't kirk one of those? Maybe not. Any way if it is nothing to worry about why is a federal judge ruling against it?

 

[88GT]

Good catch. Knock off the "suspicion of" and it would fit.

I think that's the problem with this whole Military detention thing. Alot of people have a fear of being caught up and detained indefinitely just for being "suspected of" and they feel that it could be a catch-all for the Government to be able to snatch you up and whisk you away to a Military detention camp.

The claim is all they have to do is say "We suspect you of aiding and abetting"

Reminds me of the probable cause excuse to search. The search is legal if the probable cause claim survives the probable cause standard. But there is no standard for ascertaining whether or not the probable cause claim has merit. Same thing here. Nothing more than a claim from the state that wrong-doing occurred.

Even so. It's the indefinite detention and the practical suspension of habeus corpus remedy that I find most troubling. The state has always operated on the basis of mere "claims" for justification of bringing suit and detaining people. The check on that power and authority has been the prohibition on indefinite detention. Due process wasn't swept under the rug for the sake of some trumped up claim to security or law enforcement.

Where's all the ingo members who said ndaa was no big deal and we who thought so were just wearing our tin foil hats? Wasn't kirk one of those? Maybe not. Any way if it is nothing to worry about why is a federal judge ruling against it?

There were two rounds of NDAA. The first lacked the amendment with the indefinite suspension and suspension language IIRC. Or perhaps it was the Senate version vs. the House version issue wherein one lacked the indefinite suspension and it was the conference committee to reconcile the differences that creates the hullabaloo.

 

[KG1]

Reminds me of the probable cause excuse to search. The search is legal if the probably cause claim survives the probably cause standard. But there is no standard for ascertaining whether or not the probable cause claim has merit. Same thing here. Nothing more than a claim from the state that wrong-doing occurred.

Even so. It's the indefinite detention and the practical suspension of habeus corpus remedy that I find most troubling. The state has always operated on the basis of mere "claims" for justification of bringing suit and detaining people. The check on that power and authority has been the prohibition on indefinite detention. Due process wasn't swept under the rug for the sake of some trumped up claim to security or law enforcement.

I agree and that is why the check is so vital to keep the potential for abuse from running rampant.

 

[turnandshoot4]

Thank goodness for liberals!