NDAA Ruled Unconstitutional

**michael h** · 05-31-2012

I missed this decision when it came out but its good to see indefinite detention powers of the state against Americans reigned in ... even if temporarily. No due process seems well designed to fill their detention camps with opposition.

One Foot Off the Slippery Slope: NDAA Ruled Unconstitutional by Travis Kelly -- Antiwar.com

District Judge Katherine Forrest ruled that Section 1021 in the latest National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), allowing military detention of American citizens without due process, is unconstitutional.

The lawsuit was brought by veteran journalist Chris Hedges, with attorneys Carl Mayer and Bruce Afran doing the heavy lifting without compensation. None thought they had a chance to win, given the juggernaut of military and police-state abuses that have rolled over us in the decade since 9/11. But as Hedges said after the verdict, “A stunning and monumental victory … every once in a while the gods smile on the damned.”

The defendants, President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, had argued that this new NDAA merely codified what the panicked 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) had spawned over the last decade: indefinite military detention, unwarranted searches and seizures, assassination, torture — only now it all could be employed on American soil, against American citizens, however or whenever the president and Pentagon saw fit.

This is still ambiguous language; Section 1021 states that the military is not “required” to detain American citizens. It does not forbid it. That is enough wiggle room for this president, or any future president, to strip American citizens of their rights via some new Orwellian designation and start disappearing enemies — of the state, or the party, or his own personal enemies, into the gulag of detention camps built by Halliburton subsidiary KBR (in 2006, the Department of Homeland Security awarded KBR a $385 million contract to build these camps for a possible influx of illegal immigrants, or to support the “rapid development of new programs,” whatever that means).

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The most controversial provisions to receive wide attention are contained in Title X, Subtitle D, entitled "Counter-Terrorism." In particular, sub-sections 1021 and 1022, which deal with detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism, have generated controversy as to their legal meaning and their potential implications for abuse of Presidential authority. Although the White House[9] and Senate sponsors[10] maintain that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) already grants presidential authority for indefinite detention, the Act states that Congress "affirms" this authority and makes specific provisions as to the exercise of that authority.[11][12] The detention provisions of the Act have received critical attention by, among others, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, and some media sources which are concerned about the scope of the President's authority, including contentions that those whom they claim may be held indefinitely could include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, including arrests by members of the Armed Forces.[13][14][15][16][17]

The bill passed the House 283 to 136.[18]

A federal court issued an order blocking the indefinite detention powers of the NDAA for American citizens on the grounds of unconstitutionality on May 16, 2012 in response to a lawsuit filed by journalist Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Wolf and others[19]. US District Judge Katherine B. Forrest ruled the NDAA 2012 likely violates the 1st and 5th Amendments. Issuing a preliminary injunction prevents the US government from enforcing section 1021 of the NDAA's "Homeland Battlefield" provisions pending further order of the court or an amendment to the statute by US Congress.[

**eohrnberger** · 05-31-2012

Kinda makes sense for the court to rule this way on this matter.

For a liberal administration, allegedly always so concerned for people's rights and the constitution, these provisions don't seem to make sense. Could it be that they really aren't all that interested in people's rights and the constitution?

**Blue Doggy** · 05-31-2012

Neither party is interested in what the constitution has to say. And haven't been for a long time. Their interest only lies primarily in getting re elected as power is like crack cocaine. Once you get a dose, you are hooked, and will steal from your parents in order to get your next fix.

Congress weasling out of its constiutional duty to declare wars, so as not to be hurt by their constiutents, hurting their chances to keep their position of power is clearly trampling on our constitution. If they can shirk these duties, they can pretty much shrink anything.

The constitution was used as toilet paper a long time ago, and it is continually used as Charmin. When human nature is allowed to decide, the constitution becomes a worthless piece of paper. Such is the power of human nature. The constitution sought to fetter it, yet all one has to do is to ignore it, and voila!

And if you make such ass wiping an ideological matter, you will find plenty of ideological voters agreeing with the trashing. Ideology rules, even usurping the constitution.

**timj219** · 05-31-2012

It will be interesting to see if this holds up. Justice Alito never saw a police or war power he didn't think should be strengthened. Roberts and Thomas both believe in giving very broad latitude to the president now that we're in a permanent state of war. It will be up to Scalia and Kennedy I guess. I'm scared because only one current justice ever did any civil liberties advocacy as a lawyer. And I think she might be the oldest on the court.

**Wlessard** · 06-01-2012

I am glad if this reigns in NDAA. I don't have any hope that it will slow our march towards a more totalitarian government. It really doesn't matter whether you have a D or R next to your name as Blue doggy said it is for power.

Personally I would love the following.

1: 16th Repealed
2: 17th Repealed
3: Term limits on Senators and Representatives

I MIGHT entertain a provision on 3 that States Senators and Representatives can move to another State and campaign for office if they so choose but not completely sure.