Obama is refusing to follow a federal court order that found the NDAA violates the Constitution and temporarily banned indefinite detention of U.S citizens.
The Obama administration is refusing to follow the order of a Federal District Court Judge Katherine Forrest who last month temporarily blocked the government from detaining U.S. citizens indefinitely without charge as authorized by section 1021 of the NDAA in a ruling that declared the NDAA unconstitutional.
The Obama administration first responded to the ban on indefinite detention by asking the courts to lift the injunction.
The Obama administration is now using their own twisted interpretation to claim the ruling only applies to named plaintiffs in the case and not any other journalist or U.S. citizen even though the court clearly agreed with coalition of journalist and activists that the NDAA is being used to silence critical reporting of the U.S. government.
The court also ruled that indefinite detention with charge or trial most likely violated the Fifth Amendment which guarantees all citizens Due Process which guarantees all Americans have a right to face any charges against them in a court of law before a jury of their peers during which they have a right to defend themselves against the evidence the government presents against them.
Even though the court found the NDAA “has a chilling effect on First Amendment activities” of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press the Obama administration is claiming that the court found the NDAA only had a “chilling effect” on the plaintiff’s who brought the lawsuit against the government.
Perhaps the most startling aspect of the case is the government could have had the case thrown out entirely if they would have asserted the NDAA would not be applied against journalists during their course of exercising their Constitutionally protected Freedom of Press activities.
Instead the government refused to assert that the NDAA would not be applied to journalists exercising First Amendment protected activities and further refused to assert journalism did not fall within the scope of “directly” or “substantially” supporting terrorism under the NDAA.
The government further refused to provide even a single example of what was meant by “directly” or “substantially” supporting terrorism under the NDAA instead claiming the terms were open to interpretation on a discretionary basis given the context of each case.
Obama’s newly announced interpretation of the judge’s ruling clearly has no basis in reality but will undoubtedly be enforced with full effect of the law until someone successfully challenges it in court.