Administration Asks Appeals Court for Stay on Indefinite Detention Ban, Triggers Constitutional Showdown by CHRIS HEDGES, TRUTHDIG
Administration Asks Appeals Court for Stay on Indefinite Detention Ban, Triggers Constitutional Showdown
Monday, 17 September 2012 10:30 By Chris Hedges, Truthdig | News Analysis
In January I sued President Barack Obama over Section 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which authorized the military to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely, strip them of due process and hold them in military facilities, including offshore penal colonies. Last week, round one in the battle to strike down the onerous provision, one that saw me joined by six other plaintiffs including Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg, ended in an unqualified victory for the public. U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest, who accepted every one of our challenges to the law, made her temporary injunction of the section permanent. In short, she declared the law unconstitutional.
Almost immediately after Judge Forrest ruled, the Obama administration challenged the decision. Government prosecutors called the opinion “unprecedented” and said that “the government has compelling arguments that it should be reversed.” The government added that it was an “extraordinary injunction of worldwide scope.” Government lawyers asked late Friday for an immediate stay of Forrest’s ban on the use of the military in domestic policing and on the empowering of the government to strip U.S. citizens of due process. The request for a stay was an attempt by the government to get the judge, pending appeal to a higher court, to grant it the right to continue to use the law. Forrest swiftly rejected the stay, setting in motion a fast-paced appeal to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and possibly, if her ruling is upheld there, to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Justice Department sent a letter to Forrest and the 2nd Circuit late Friday night informing them that at 9 a.m. Monday the Obama administration would ask the 2nd Circuit for an emergency stay that would lift Forrest’s injunction. This would allow Obama to continue to operate with indefinite detention authority until a formal appeal was heard. The government’s decision has triggered a constitutional showdown between the president and the judiciary.
“This may be the most significant constitutional standoff since the Pentagon Papers case,” said Carl Mayer, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs.
“The administration of President Obama within the last 48 hours has decided to engage in an all-out campaign to block and overturn an order of a federal judge,” said co-lead counsel Bruce Afran. “As Judge Forrest noted in her opinion, nothing is more fundamental in American law than the possibility that journalists, activists and citizens could lose their liberty, potentially forever, and the Obama administration has now lined up squarely with the most conservative elements of the Republican Party to undermine Americans’ civil liberties.”
The request by the government to keep the law on the books during the appeal process raises a disturbing question. If the administration is this anxious to restore this section of the NDAA, is it because the Obama government has already used it? Or does it have plans to use the section in the immediate future?
“A Department of Homeland Security bulletin was issued Friday claiming that the riots [in the Middle East] are likely to come to the U.S. and saying that DHS is looking for the Islamic leaders of these likely riots,” Afran said. “It is my view that this is why the government wants to reopen the NDAA—so it has a tool to round up would-be Islamic protesters before they can launch any protest, violent or otherwise. Right now there are no legal tools to arrest would-be protesters. The NDAA would give the government such power. Since the request to vacate the injunction only comes about on the day of the riots, and following the DHS bulletin, it seems to me that the two are connected. The government wants to reopen the NDAA injunction so that they can use it to block protests.”
The decision to vigorously fight Forrest’s ruling is a further example of the Obama White House’s steady and relentless assault against civil liberties, an assault that is more severe than that carried out by George W. Bush. Obama has refused to restore habeas corpus. He supports the FISA Amendment Act, which retroactively makes legal what under our Constitution has traditionally been illegal—warrantless wire tapping, eavesdropping and monitoring directed against U.S. citizens. He has used the Espionage Act six times against whistle-blowers who have exposed government crimes, including war crimes, to the public. He interprets the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act as giving him the authority to assassinate U.S. citizens, as he did the cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. And now he wants the right to use the armed forces to throw U.S. citizens into military prisons, where they will have no right to a trial and no defined length of detention.
Liberal apologists for Barack Obama should read Judge Forrest’s 112-page ruling. It is a chilling explication and denunciation of the massive erosion of the separation of powers. It courageously challenges the overreach of Congress and the executive branch in stripping Americans of some of our most cherished constitutional rights.
In the last 220 years there have been only about 135 judicial rulings that have struck down an act of Congress. Most of the cases involved abortion or pornography. Very few dealt with wartime powers and the separation of powers, or what Forrest in her opinion called “a question of defining an individual’s core liberties.”
Section 1021(b)(2) authorizes the military to detain any U.S. citizen who “substantially supported” al-Qaida, the Taliban or “associated forces” and then hold them in military compounds until “the end of hostilities.” The vagueness of the language, and the refusal to exempt journalists, means that those of us who as part of our reporting have direct contact with individuals or groups deemed to be part of a terrorist network can find ourselves seized and detained under the provision.
“The Government was unable to offer definitions for the phrases ‘substantially support’ or ‘directly support,’ ” the judge wrote. “In particular, when the Court asked for one example of what ‘substantially support’ means, the Government stated, ‘I’m not in a position to give one specific example.’ When asked about the phrase ‘directly support,’ the Government stated, ‘I have not thought through exactly and we have not come to a position on ‘direct support’ and what that means.’ In its pre-trial memoranda, the Government also did not provide any definitional examples for those terms.”
The judge’s ruling asked whether a news article deemed by authorities as favorable to the Taliban could be interpreted as having “substantially supported” the Taliban.
“How about a YouTube video?” she went on. “Where is the line between what the government would consider ‘journalistic reporting’ and ‘propaganda?’ Who will make such determinations? Will there be an office established to read articles, watch videos, and evaluate speeches in order to make judgments along a spectrum of where the support is ‘modest’ or ‘substantial?’ ”
Forrest concurred with the plaintiffs that the statute violated our free speech rights and due-process guarantees. She noted that “the Court repeatedly asked the Government whether those particular past activities could subject plaintiffs to indefinite detention; the Government refused to answer.” The judge went on to criticize the nebulous language of the law, chastising the government because it “did not provide particular definitions.” She wrote that “the statute’s vagueness falls far short of what due process requires.”
Although government lawyers argued during the trial that the law represented no change from prior legislation, they now assert that blocking it imperils the nation’s security. It is one of numerous contradictions in the government’s case, many of which were illuminated in Forrest’s opinion. The government, she wrote, “argues that no future administration could interpret § 1021(b)(2) or the AUMF differently because the two are so clearly the same. That frankly makes no sense, particularly in light of the Government’s inability at the March and August hearings to define certain terms in—or the scope of—§ 1021(b)(2).” The judge said that “Section 1021 appears to be a legislative attempt at an ex post facto ‘fix': to provide the President (in 2012) with broader detention authority than was provided in the AUMF [Authorization to Use Military Force Act] in 2001 and to try and ratify past detentions which may have occurred under an overly-broad interpretation of the AUMF.”
The government, in effect, is attempting to push though a law similar to the legislation that permitted the government to intern 110,000 Japanese-Americans during World War II. This law, if it comes back into force, would facilitate the mass internment of Muslim Americans as well as those deemed to “support” groups or activities defined as terrorist by the state. Calling the 1944 ruling “an embarrassment,” Forrest referred to Korematsu v. United States, which upheld the government’s internment of Japanese-Americans.
The judge said in her opinion that the government “did not submit any evidence in support of its positions. It did not call a single witness, submit a single declaration, or offer a single document at any point during these proceedings.” She went on to write that she found “the testimony of each plaintiff credible.”
“At the March hearing, the Court asked whether Hedges’ activities could subject him to detention under § 1021; the Government stated that it was not prepared to address that question. When asked a similar question at the August hearing, five months later, the Government remained unwilling to state whether any of plaintiffs’ (including Hedges’s) protected First Amendment future activities could subject him or her to detention under § 1021. This Court finds that Hedges has a reasonable fear of detention pursuant to § 1021(b)(2).”
The government has now lost four times in a litigation that has gone on almost nine months. It lost the preliminary injunction in May. It lost a motion for reconsideration shortly thereafter. It lost the permanent injunction. It lost its request last week for a stay. We won’t stop fighting this, but it is deeply disturbing that the Obama administration, rather than protecting our civil liberties and democracy, insists on further eroding them by expanding the power of the military to seize U.S. citizens and control our streets.
- Obama Appeals NDAA, Indefinite Detention Ban. Media Ignores it. (libertycrier.com)
- Americans already detained under NDAA? (alethonews.wordpress.com)
- Americans Already Detained Under NDAA? (alexanderhiggins.com)
- Americans already detained under NDAA? (rt.com)
- Obama fights for indefinite detention (salon.com)
- Administration Asks Appeals Court for Stay on Indefinite Detention Ban, Triggers Constitutional Showdown (lissakr11humanelife.wordpress.com)
- Federal Government Not Willing To Rethink NDAA (personalliberty.com)
- White House demands military prisons for Americans under NDAA (EndtheLie.com)
- We Won – For Now (truthdig.com)
September 29, 2012 - Posted by duckyack | Here And Now | Barack Obama, Forrest, George W. Bush, National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, Obama, Obama administration, Supreme Court of the United States
No comments yet.
Website under construction
Just Me, Administrator
Where We Stand
This is a Conservative political blog. The Administrator writes under MY TWO SENSE, and all other posts are either re-postings from online news articles and/or commentaries. Readers may comment on any subject as long as the comment is without hate and unacceptable language. Any post, in part or in full, as long as permission is obtained from the original author, may be copied and pasted, and sourced with website link and author. Nothing from this website may be used for commercial or personal gain. Any post under MY TWO SENSE can be reposted as long as it is not for commercial gain, clearly dispays the source link, and sites the author. We believe the above rules fall under the Fair Use Act rules and regulations.
Administrator is retired, cherishes privacy, is a Constitutional Conservative, anti-Obama, DC corruption, and people without the courage to stand up and speak out against the myriad injustices perpetrated by the Obama administration. Administrator's montra; Stand Up and Speak Out about injustices, child abuse, and Constitutional high crimes and treason.
Administrator has very little tolerance for those who will not defend their country against unConstitutional actions taken by the government. And the Administrator has no tolerence for those who are "too busy" with family and job to get involved. We are at war with government corruption at the highest degree in our history, and we are at war with Islam. Both are out to destroy America, and this Administration has done most of the dismantling of our infrastructure, and now, it is helping Muslim extremists murder American citizens without due process, probable cause, and without representation from an attorney. Pick your side, and jump into the fray.
Blogs I Follow
- November 2014 (1)
- October 2014 (4)
- September 2014 (4)
- August 2014 (18)
- April 2014 (1)
- March 2014 (7)
- December 2013 (6)
- November 2013 (22)
- October 2013 (8)
- September 2013 (12)
- August 2013 (27)
- July 2013 (33)
- June 2013 (24)
- May 2013 (78)
- April 2013 (64)
- March 2013 (20)
- February 2013 (9)
- January 2013 (30)
- December 2012 (51)
- November 2012 (53)
- October 2012 (115)
- September 2012 (62)
- August 2012 (47)
- July 2012 (24)
- June 2012 (30)
- THE RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW & “OBAMACARE WRITTEN TO FOOL STUPID AMERICANS” November 12, 2014Obamacare Architect Jonathan Gruber: We Lied and Counted on the Stupidity of the American VoterNovember 10, 2014 BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Have you seen or heard the audio snippet of the actual author of Obamacare? His name is Jonathan Gruber. He is a professor at MIT, a professor of economics. He wrote both Romneycare and he […]duckyack
- BREITBART BIG GOVERNMENT by AWR HAWKINS October 30, 2014Students Suspended For Holding Airsoft Guns In Photo Taken In Living Room http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/10/29/Students-Get-Suspended-For-Holding-Airsoft-Guns-In-Photo-Taken-In-Living-Room by AWR Hawkins 29 Oct 2014 Two Massachusetts high school sweethearts—Tito Velez and Jamie Pereira—are suspended from school after posing with Airsoft toy […]duckyack
- BREITBART BIG GOVERNMENT “VIDEO: MACHINE SWITCHES VOTES from REPUBLICAN to DEMOCRAT IN IL” by JOEL B. POLLAK October 30, 2014Video: Machine Switches Votes from Republican to Democrat in IL by Joel B. Pollak 29 Oct 2014 Video has emerged from Illinois of a “calibration error” that causes voting machines to switch votes from Republican to Democrat. The video, posted on YouTube, purportedly shows voting machines in the public library in Moline, IL registering votes […]duckyack
- EMAIL FROM SEN. TED CRUZ October 29, 2014http://www.jobsgrowth.org/makedclisten/?mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRonuq3IZKXonjHpfsX87ektW6ag38431UFwdcjKPmjr1YIAScd0aPyQAgobGp5I5FEKS7HYXa1mt6EOUgemXSjrtqDIZoxAZZ13gZcy Dear Xxxxxx, We’re engaged in an urgent fight to change the course of our nation. But there’s something you can do — right now — to help us win. I believe we’re going to retake the United States […]duckyack
- BLACKS ARE “LESS SOPHISTICATED VOTERS” by J. CHRISTIAN ADAMS, BREITBART BIG GOVERNMENT October 21, 2014MY TWO SENSE BLACKS TOO STUPID TO PROCURE VOTER ID-BLACKS LESS EVOLVED THAN OTHER RACES: It’s the same old argument from closeted racists (I’m weary of the term)! Can you imagine what explosions would occur if a Conservative had said such a thing? Of course, you can. The fact is; now listen up black folk […]duckyack
- EMAIL LETTER FROM TED CRUZ September 25, 2014A LETTER FROM TED CRUZ Dear Xxxxxxxxx, A year ago today, we began an effort to #MakeDCListen. I went to the Senate floor to warn of the tremendous harms Obamacare would cause and urge Congress to do something about it. You went to Facebook, to Twitter, or even to your neighbors to speak the truth. […]duckyack
- TOWNHALL.COM by KATIE PAVLICH (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/09/10/doj-works-with-democrats-on-capitol-hill-to-attack-issa-over-irs-scandal-n1889482) September 10, 2014http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/09/10/doj-works-with-democrats-on-capitol-hill-to-attack-issa-over-irs-scandal-n1889482 Liberal Incest: DOJ Works With Democrats on Capitol Hill to Attack Issa, Manipulate IRS Scandal Info Katie Pavlich | Sep 10, 2014 A letter sent to Attorney General Eric Holder from Chairman of the House Oversight Committee […]duckyack
- SENATOR TED CRUZ’S COMPILATION OF: THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S ATTEMPTS TO EXPAND FEDERAL POWER September 5, 2014OFFICE OF SENATOR TED CRUZ 185 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-5922 http://www.cruz.senate.gov THE LEGAL LIMIT: THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S ATTEMPTS TO EXPAND FEDERAL POWER Report No. 4: The Obama Administration’s Abuse of Power By U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) Ranking Member Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on The Constitution, C […]duckyack
- UNITED STATES FREEDOM ARMY EMAIL: WEBSITE(http://www.usfreedomarmy.com/constitutional-freedom-march/) September 4, 2014UNITED STATES FREEDOM ARMY END OF MONTH REPORT AS OF 08/31/2014 CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM MARCH “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” “When your children and grandchildren ask you what happened to America make sure […]duckyack
- MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER by L. BRENT BOZELL, III (Email sent to me) August 23, 2014Please take a moment to read this important op-ed by Media Research Center Founder and President L. Brent Bozell, III. MEDIA CENSOR SOROS CONNECTION TO PERRY INDICTMENT By L. Brent Bozell, III On January 27, 1998, then First Lady Hillary Clinton – without a shred of credible evidence – infamously claimed during an NBC Today […]duckyack
- HOT AIR posted by MICHELE KIRK August 22, 2014Forget Obama’s dribble; you’ll want to read this US Marine veteran’s powerful response to beheading! August 22, 2014 by Michele Kirk Photo credit: AmericanLivewire.com As Obama continues to bounce the ball meaninglessly all over the court, leave it to a US soldier to get a slam dunk! A Marine Corps veteran sent an unmistakable message […]duckyack
- NEW YORK TIMES by PETER BAKER and JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS August 22, 2014MY TWO SENSE Immediately after being “‘heartbroken’ by the brutal murder of an American journalist, James Foley,” and after he “just hung up the telephone with the devastated parents,” Obamahammamomma runs to golf course because, of course, he’s still on vacation. He had to go, after all, because apparently it’s not good for the president […] […]duckyack
- TOWNHALL.COM by LARRY ELDER August 22, 2014MY TWO SENSE AREN’T YOU ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES, HYPOCRITES OF THE NATION? I’m saying that I’m ashamed to be associated with everyone I know who jumped on this band wagon of the “Poor, poor black teen, murdered by a Ferguson cop!” Officer Wilson, I believed none of it, because no evidence was in-no witness statements […]duckyack
- NEWS.COM.AU by NETWORK WRITERS August 19, 2014MY TWO SENSE We no longer need worry about which photo of Michael Brown is being used to spin this case. Agree, or not, this woman is to be respected for her courage to stand up for her beliefs, for the fact that she has moral-issues beliefs, and for her tenacity of meeting violence with […]duckyack
- COUNCIL OF CONSERVATIVES CITIZENS by Channel 4 News St. Louis, MO August 18, 2014Four black males murder random white man for the fun of it Imo, MO If the races had been reversed, this would be a national news story. Instead it is a hush crime and the media calls it “a robbery.” A white pizza delivery driver was shot and killed while sitting in his car in […]duckyack
- THE RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOW & “OBAMACARE WRITTEN TO FOOL STUPID AMERICANS” November 12, 2014