In a rare display of constitutional patriotism by a government authority, an Obama-appointed federal judge has put an indefinite block on the egregious National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). According to Bloomberg, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest of Manhattan, N.Y., ruled in favor of plaintiffs who earlier had sued the Obama administration over the bill’s unconstitutional arrest and detainment provisions, which provide no protection for American citizens.
The loosely-worded Section 1021 of the bill cunningly grants the president unrestrained authority to use military force in detaining practically anyone for any suspected “terrorist-related” activity, without warrant and without a trial (http://www.naturalnews.com). This section, which was the primary focus of the lawsuit, admittedly provides no protection for American citizens, and is patently unconstitutional no matter how you look at it.
“The statute at issue places the public at undue risk of having their speech chilled for the purported protection from al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and ‘associated forces’ — i.e., ‘foreign terrorist organizations,” said Forrest in her opinion. “The vagueness of Section 1021 does not allow the average citizen, or even the government itself, to understand with the type of definiteness to which our citizens are entitled, or what conduct comes within its scope.”
Unless the U.S. Congress amends the bill to protect Americans against having their constitutional rights abolished in the name of national security, NDAA will remain blocked, at least formally. However, NDAA is really just an extension of the horrific USA Patriot Act, which was the Bush administration’s precursor to NDAA that was passed immediately after the 9/11 terrorist attacks (http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html).
Obama administration appears to have fully intended to use NDAA against American citizens
Speaking on the details of how the case has proceeded thus far, Judge Forrest explained that Obama attorneys made absolutely no attempt to defend the administration against the allegations. They also made no attempt to claim that the ambiguous provisions were intended only for foreign suspects, which in and of itself points to sinister intentions with the bill.
“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 Section 1021,” said Judge Forrest. “It did not. This court therefore must credit the chilling impact on First Amendment rights as reasonable — and real.”