US Federal Judge: Permanent Injunction against Indefinite Detention without trial (NDAA)

Image by Salvatore Vuono / freedigitalphotos.net *

“A huge and historic victory for democracy”

Judge Forrest’s decision this week reaffirms her earlier ruling that prohibits the US government from abiding by the indefinite detention provision in the NDAA, a clause that allows for American citizens to be detained and held on the suspicion of supporting terrorists “or associated forces” until a very vague time frame described as only “until the end of hostilities.”RT (1)

Continue reading

Advertisements

HISTORIC Victory for Civil Rights: U.S. Judge puts a hold on NDAA indefinite military detention

“Those who Sacrifice Liberty for Security deserve Neither.”
Benjamin Franklin

“All of this has gone too far in this country”
Carl Mayer, attorney for The Mayer Law Group

Judge says Americans aren’t part of ‘Homeland Battlefield’

“Sorry, Mr. President. A US Federal judge has clarified a decision made last month with some news sure to upset the Obama administration: the White House cannot use the NDAA to indefinitely detain American citizens.” RTNDAA unconstitutional: Federal judge bans Obama from indefinitely detaining Americans – June 7, 2012

Federal Judge Clarifies:
My Injunction Against NDAA Indefinite Detention Applies To ALL Americans

LaRouchePAC
June 8, 2012

As previously reported, Federal District Judge Katherine Forrest, in Manhattan on May 16, 2012 issued a preliminary injunction in Hedges v. Obama, against Government enforcement of a section of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). That section of the NDAA permits detention of any individuals who are viewed as “supporting” or “associated with” terrorists, for the duration of the present, ongoing military hostilities.

On May 25, the Government filed a motion for reconsideration, i.e., asking the judge to change her decision because of important relevant facts or law she had not considered in her ruling. In the normal course of arguing a motion, the plaintiffs are due to file a response to that motion tomorrow, and the Government gets to reply to the plaintiff’s arguments a week later.

However, the Government’s May 25 brief about their motion stated at the outset, that the Government deems the judge’s preliminary injunction order to apply only to the individual plaintiffs in the case, and not more generally, and that it only enjoined enforcement under one sub-section of the NDAA.

On June 6, Judge Forrest issued a new opinion addressing the Government’s expressed views about the scope of her order. Continue reading