Quantcast

Judge to feds on citizen detention: I said no!

SunShine 2012/06/16 12:43:53

A federal judge has told the Obama administration that all Americans are protected by her preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of a citizen detention clause in a new federal law supported by Obama.


The federal government had told the judge it concluded that her recent ruling exempted only the named plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the provision.


That interpretation would have enabled the government to enforce the detention provision against all Americans except the plaintiffs.


U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest shot back in a new Memorandum Opinion and Order yesterday that said because the possible injury to Americans includes the loss of their rights, her order was intended to protect everyone.


“The injunction in this action is intentionally expansive because ‘persons whose expression is constitutionally protected [and not party to the instant litigation] may well refrain from exercising their rights for fear of criminal sanctions by a statute susceptible of application to protected expression,’” Forrest wrote.


On May 16 she issued a preliminary injunction banning enforcement of Section 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act. The section allows indefinite detention of people designated by the government as terrorists or terror-linked.


The law allows them to be held without hearing, charges or bond – essentially without their civil rights. And their detention can be indefinite.


The Obama administration asked for reconsideration and said it was interpreting the injunction as a protection only for the individual plaintiffs.


Wrong, the judge wrote.


“The law has long provided that this type of finding has provided relief to both the parties pursuing the challenge, as well as third parties not before the court,” she lectured. “This court’s preliminary injunction was consistent with that precedent. Put more bluntly, the May 16 order enjoined enforcement of Section 1021(b)(2) against anyone until further action by this, or a higher, court – or by Congress.”


She continued: “Here, plaintiffs argue that they and others could be subject to indefinite military detention under Section 1021 (b)(2); accordingly, the public interest in ensuring that ordinary citizens understand the scope of such a statute justifies its breadth.”


WND previously has reported on the dispute, which has gathered significant attention already. The law is based on a vague provision that appears to allow for the suspension of civil rights and the detention of citizens linked to terrorism.


Virginia already has passed a law that states it will not cooperate with such detentions, and several local jurisdictions have done the same. Arizona, Rhode Island, Maryland, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Washington also have reviewed such plans.


The case was brought on behalf of Christopher Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Jennifer Bolen, Noam Chomsky, Alex O’Brien, Kai Warg All, Brigitta Jonsottir and the group U.S. Day of Rage. Many of the plaintiffs are authors or reporters who stated that the threat of indefinite detention by the U.S. military already had altered their activities.


Constitutional expert Herb Titus filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the sponsor of the Virginia law, Delegate Bob Marshall, and others.


Titus, an attorney with William J. Olson, P.C., told WND that the judge’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of paragraph 1021 “affirms the constitutional position taken by Delegate Marshall is correct.”


The impact is that “the statute does not have sufficient constitutional guidelines to govern the discretion of the president in making a decision whether to hold someone in indefinite military detention,” Titus said.


The judge noted that the law doesn’t have a requirement that there be any knowledge that an act is prohibited before a detention. The judge also said the law is vague, and she appeared to be disturbed that the administration lawyers refused to answer her questions.


Titus said the opinion underscores “the arrogance of the current regime, in that they will not answer questions that they ought to answer to a judge because they don’t think they have to.”


The judge explained that the plaintiffs alleged paragraph 1021 is “constitutionally infirm, violating both their free speech and associational rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment as well due process rights guaranteed by the 5th Amendment.”


She noted the government “did not call any witnesses, submit any documentary evidence or file any declarations.”


“It must be said that it would have been a rather simple matter for the government to have stated that as to these plaintiffs and the conduct as to which they would testify, that [paragraph] 1021 did not and would not apply, if indeed it did or would not,” she wrote.


Instead, the administration only responded with, “I’m not authorized to make specific representations regarding specific people.”


“The court’s attempt to avoid having to deal with the constitutional aspects of the challenge was by providing the government with prompt notice in the form of declarations and depositions of the … conduct in which plaintiffs are involved and which they claim places them in fear of military detention,” she wrote.


“To put it bluntly, to eliminate these plaintiffs’ standing simply by representing that their conduct does not fall within the scope of 1021 would have been simple. The government chose not to do so – thereby ensuring standing and requiring this court to reach the merits of the instant motion.


“Plaintiffs have stated a more than plausible claim that the statute inappropriately encroaches on their rights under the 1st Amendment,” she wrote.


Forrest found that the plaintiffs had a reasonable fear of detention based on the language of the statute. She ordered the provision not to be enforced until further proceedings in her court or “remedial” action by Congress that would restore those protections.


The brief was on behalf of Marshall and other individuals and organizations, including the United States Justice Foundation, Downsize DC Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Gun Owners of America, Western Center for Journalism, the Tenth Amendment Center and Pastor Chuck Baldwin.


“The government was given a number of opportunities at the hearing and in its briefs to state unambiguously that the type of expressive and associational activities engaged in by plaintiffs – or others – are not within [paragraph] 1021. It did not. This court therefore must credit the chilling impact on 1st Amendment rights as reasonable – and real,” Forrest said.


Marshall’s HB1160 passed the Virginia House of Delegates by a vote of 87-7 and the Virginia Senate 36-1. Since the vote was on changes recommended by Gov. Bob McDonnell, it was scheduled to take effect without further vote.


Marshall then wrote leaders in state legislatures around the country suggesting similar votes in their states.


Marshall’s letter noted Virginia was the first state in the nation to refuse cooperation “with federal authorities who, acting under the authority of section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), could arrest and detain American citizens suspected of aiding terrorists without probable cause, without the right to know the charges against them, and without the procedural rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Our new law goes into effect on July 1, 2012.”


He told lawmakers, “While we would hope that the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives would be vigilant to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens, even when addressing the problem of international terrorism, those efforts in Congress failed at the end of last year, and President Obama signed NDAA into law on December 31, 2011.”


Endorsing Marshall’s plan was the Japanese American Citizens League, which cited the detention of tens of thousands of Japanese Americans during World War II on no authorization other than the president’s signature.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/judge-to-feds-on-citizen-detention...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Azrael-In GOD we trust 2012/06/18 02:09:38
    Azrael-In GOD we trust
    +2
    Where is this great judge from? I couldn't tell where she was from, but we need ALOT more just like her.
  • D D 2012/06/17 05:17:36
    D D
    +1
    Obama has a mind of his own and a strong will and lot's of power. Who will force him to abide by any rulings? NDAA is here to stay.
  • Dan (Politicaly Incorrect) 2012/06/17 02:03:16
    Dan (Politicaly Incorrect)
    +2
    All those that voted for this need to go.
  • Azrael-... Dan (Po... 2012/06/18 02:07:47
    Azrael-In GOD we trust
    +2
    All of them need kicked out and we need to start anew. Every one of congress knew BO was not eligible.
  • johnnyg 2012/06/17 00:39:44
    johnnyg
    +1
    I am surprized by this. USGovt will ignore it and find some other bill to sneak it in.
  • Rodney 2012/06/16 22:52:20
    Rodney
    +1
    Gee, why am I not surprised that Obie and his gang of Chit-cago thugs would take her opinion in such a way. For being liars...er...uh...I mean Lawyers and Barry being a "Constitutional Law Professor" (in a pigs eye he is/was) you would think that between them they could muster up a couple functioning brain cells.
  • Gregaj7 2012/06/16 22:51:50
    Gregaj7
    +2
    That'll ruffle some municipal agents, including Obama.
  • Don Leuty 2012/06/16 21:13:10
    Don Leuty
    +3
    We are getting more like the former Soviet Union every day. If a bill says "Nation Defense" it means "National Opression" and "Affordable" is anything but.
  • Mike 2012/06/16 19:18:35
    Mike
    +2
    He'll ignore the order obama evil dictator
  • Birthpangs 2012/06/16 18:35:47
  • Cgirl4you Birthpangs 2012/06/16 21:08:13
    Cgirl4you
    I'm pretty sure execution without trial doesn't become right just because the government is doing something wrong. What you said could even be construed as a threat...which I'm sure you'd want someone arrested for if it were Bush or Romney.
  • Birthpangs Cgirl4you 2012/06/18 02:28:30 (edited)
  • Tinka123 2012/06/16 18:22:36
    Tinka123
    +4
    This is excellent news. Imagine - the Constitutional Lawyer taking such an absurd position as to believe that ruling only applied to the plaintiffs. Too rich.
  • TheCouc... Tinka123 2012/06/16 18:47:16
    TheCouchF*cker
    +3
    You mean they tried to create a loophole to get around an obstacle? Big surprise there.
  • Tinka123 TheCouc... 2012/06/16 18:52:01
    Tinka123
    +3
    I know right, big shocker. lol
  • Space Invader 2012/06/16 18:19:29
    Space Invader
    +5
    Uncle Barry won't be happy about this!! evil obama
  • Theresa 2012/06/16 18:16:13
    Theresa
    +5
    This lawless regime has shown total contempt for Federal Law and the Courts why would anyone believe they would follow this injunction any more than all the others he has ignored!
  • Kane Fernau 2012/06/16 16:03:57
    Kane Fernau
    +3
    If the courts don't do their job Obama will throw the Constitution in the trash.
  • Cgirl4you Kane Fe... 2012/06/16 21:09:07
    Cgirl4you
    As if other presidents haven't done this sort of thing and won't in the future.
  • Kane Fe... Cgirl4you 2012/06/17 15:49:43
    Kane Fernau
    +1
    Doesn't make it right.
  • D D Kane Fe... 2012/06/17 05:11:41
    D D
    The courts do not enforce. Who will force Obama to obey the ruling?
  • Kane Fe... D D 2012/06/17 15:49:03
    Kane Fernau
    +1
    The American people. We can only be pushed so far.
  • D D Kane Fe... 2012/06/18 08:27:47
    D D
    +1
    That is how it is suppose to be, but...
  • Kane Fe... D D 2012/06/18 14:52:45
    Kane Fernau
    +1
    Too many Sheeple? I think you're underestimating the Real America.
  • D D Kane Fe... 2012/06/19 05:54:18
    D D
    +2
    I hope I am
  • Red Branch 2012/06/16 15:07:49
    Red Branch
    +4
    Great Post Sunshine.

    {{“While we would hope that the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives would be vigilant to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens, even when addressing the problem of international terrorism, those efforts in Congress failed at the end of last year, and President Obama signed NDAA into law on December 31, 2011.”}}

    One would hope that they would do that as it is part of their jobs, but they are more like co-conspiritors.
  • SunShine Red Branch 2012/06/16 20:25:32
    SunShine
    +1
    thanks RB.. just another block in the house of horrors he's building
  • Schläue~© 2012/06/16 13:39:39
    Schläue~©
    +3
    I'm not sure why this has been blown into such an issue.

    First off the NDAA 2012 is a one year order and will automatically be re-defined for 2013.
    The parts in question are section 1021 and 1022 which in contingent upon the 1021.

    The Judge has ordered those sections blocked until a higher court reviews it.
    It is already being challenged yet people continue to go ballistic.

    And someone who claims to be a Constitutional scholar should understand that a ruling affects everyone, just as Roe v Wade wasn't just about the those two parties, it was a ruling that applied to all states, & peoples within the USA.
  • Red Branch Schläue~© 2012/06/16 15:28:55
    Red Branch
    +3
    As a rule a ruling by a Federal District Court judge only applies to the District itself.

    A ruling by an Appeals Court only applies to the Appellate District.

    A decision, by the US Supreme Court applies to the entire US.

    Roe v Wade was a Supreme Court ruling. It had worked its way through the system beginning in a Federal District Court, then it was appealed to the Appellate Court and appealed to the Supreme Court.
  • Schläue~© Red Branch 2012/06/16 15:58:19
    Schläue~©
    +1
    Yeah .... I picked a bad example.
    The WH attorney's are trying to argue that the Judge's ruling applies ONLY to those listed as plaintiffs and the she had to remind them that wasn't the case.
  • D D Schläue~© 2012/06/17 05:15:20
    D D
    +1
    Who is going to force the gov/Obama to follow the ruling?
  • Schläue~© D D 2012/06/17 12:02:44
    Schläue~©
    +1
    A landslide defeat in November and removal in January.
    Besides, the NDAA 2012 is only a one-year bill and will be revisited for 2013 where those provisions can be stricken.
  • Charu ∞ijm♥∞ 2012/06/16 13:08:18
    Charu ∞ijm♥∞
    +6
    judge halts NDAA

    He is speaking BS!
  • ConLibFraud 2012/06/16 12:49:05
    ConLibFraud
    +7
    Hey congress! We The People are never going to forget what you have done and are trying to do!!!!

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/09/01 21:20:43

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals