Courthouse News writes, "An injunction against the National Defense Authorization Act protects all, not just the named plaintiffs, a federal judge said, clarifying her order against a "constitutionally infirm" provision that would allow the military to indefinitely detain anyone it accuses of knowingly or unknowingly supporting terrorism."
The NDAA is a federal law enacted annually that specifies budget and expenditures for the US Department of Defense (PDF).
Section 1021's is a far reaching expansion of the AUMF, Authorization for the Use of Military Force (PDF), and contains language so vague that it permits the US Government to indefinitely detain individuals it deems as a threat anywhere in the world, including journalists and activists, violating the First and Fifth amendments of the US Constitution.
In response to the Judge's May 16, 2012 ruling, the Government filed a Motion for Reconsideration on May 25
The New York Times quotes Forrest's Memorandum Order & Opinion, which is embedded in its entirety below.
"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 wrote. "This order should eliminate any doubt as to the May 16 order's scope."
In the Press
This work by Alexa O'Brien is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Based on a work at alexaobrien.com.Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at [email protected].