Judge Rules in Favor of the Constitution, Against Barack Obama
I’ve been following this lawsuit by Chris Hedges, et al., and while this, sadly, will be in the courts for years (thanks to hope and change Constitutional lawyer guy Barack Obama), I’m happy for this development:
A federal judge Wednesday issued an injunction against a National Defense Authorization Act provision that grants the military the right to detain anyone it suspects of involvement in terrorism. [Vague and subjective or what?] U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest ruled in favor of a group of plaintiffs, including Truthdig columnist Chris Hedges, who filed a lawsuit against the legislation within weeks of President Obama signing it.
Signed by President Barack Obama on New Year’s Eve, the 565-page NDAA contains a short paragraph, in statute 1021, letting the military detain anyone it suspects “substantially supported” al-Qaida, the Taliban or “associated forces.” The indefinite detention would supposedly last until “the end of hostilities.”
In a 68-page ruling blocking this statute, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest agreed that the statute failed to “pass constitutional muster” because its broad language could be used to quash political dissent.?
“There is a strong public interest in protecting rights guaranteed by the First Amendment,” Forrest wrote. “There is also a strong public interest in ensuring that due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment are protected by ensuring that ordinary citizens are able to understand the scope of conduct that could subject them to indefinite military detention.”
Thank you Judge Forrest for respecting the Constitution.
I have a category on this blog: “Obama — Don’t Count on My Vote.” I’m filing this post there. “Democrats:” I can only take so much. There are lines I won’t cross. This is one of them.