Chris Hedges, et. al., win NDAA lawsuit.

[Luminous Animal]

Permanent Injunction Against Indefinite Military Detention in NDAA Issued by Federal Judge
http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/09/13/permanent-injunction-against-ndaa-provision-issued-by-federal-judge/

A federal judge issued a ruling on September 12 that permanently enjoined a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that was signed by President Barack Obama codifying indefinite military detention into United State law last year. She found that the writers, journalists and activists who were plaintiffs in the lawsuit had demonstrated actual and reasonably that their First Amendment-protected activities could subject them to indefinite military detention and ruled the public had a greater interest in preserving the First Amendment and due process rights than allowing law enforcement to have this tool.

Judge Katherine B. Forrest, a judge appointed by Obama, had already issued a temporary injunction against Section 1021 of the NDAA. That section authorized the President to “use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), including “the authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons.” The section said a “covered person” was “a person who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.” Persons detained could be held without trial “under the law of war” until the “end of hostilities authorized by the AUMF.”

Journalist Chris Hedges, Occupy London co-founder Kai Wargalla, WL Central writer and US Day of Rage founder Alexa O’Brien, and Icelandic parliamentarian Birgitta Jonsdottir demonstrated in court during the trial that they were able to prove the provision could result in an “imminent and particularized, invasion of legally-protected interests.” In her 112-page ruling, the judge wrote, “Hedges, O’Brien, Wargalla, and Jonsdottir all testified to facts showing a chilling of their written, oral or associational activities. That is actual injury.” (For more specific details on the plaintiffs’ back stories, go here.)

Forrest concluded the plaintiffs had demonstrated monetary damages would not “redress the injury” and “considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiffs and government, injunctive relief” was warranted and “the public interest would not be disserved by the issuance of an injunction.” She also found the government had been “unable to provide this Court with any assurance” that these writers, journalists or activists’ activities would not subject them to military detention, as laid out in section 1021.

[Zorra]

1. Bravo, Chris, Kai, Alexa, and Birgitta for standing up for our rights and winning.

This is a really important victory for 1st Amendment rights.

Thanks for the great news, LA.

[xiamiam]

2. this is very good news. thanks for posting..nt

[Luminous Animal]

3. Please sign this letter urging Obama to no appeal the Judge's injunction.

http://act.demandprogress.org/act/ndaa_lawsuit_win/?referring_akid=.194196.pE4I30&source=typ-tw

[msanthrope]

8. Notice of Appeal was filed last month, Appeal filed today. nt

[Luminous Animal]

4. Some comments from Hedges and the plaintiffs lawyers....

The lead plaintiff in this lawsuit is former New York Times war correspondent Chris Hedges. He is joined by six others, including Noam Chomsky and Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg.

“This is a tremendous victory for the rule of law and the right of all U.S. citizens, regardless of their ideological persuasions, to be afforded due process. It restores the two century ban on the use of the military by the state for domestic policing. Judge Katherine Forrest, in an era when federal judges often seem to issue rulings about why they cannot implement the law, has with this injunction restored one of our most cherished Constitutional rights. The Obama administration will not doubt appeal this decision. We will continue to fight back. It is not over yet. But I, and I hope all Americans, can sleep a little more easily tonight,” said Chris Hedges this morning when asked about the Judge Forrest’s ruling.

Attorney for the plaintiffs, Carl J. Mayer had a bold message to share with the President regarding any possible plans to appeal the administration may have, ”President, and former Constitutional Law Professor Obama, knows that the so-called Homeland Battlefield Act or NDAA is unconstitutional and we are calling on him and his Attorney General to drop any appeal in this case and honor the opinion of the President’s own appointee: Judge Katherine Forrest. September 12 was an important day in American history; it is rare for the Court’s to declare an Act of Congress unconstitutional. But as the Judge noted, ‘the stakes could not be higher’ and fortunately the citizens, our democracy and the Constitution remain triumphant.”

“Forrest’s ruling understands that the most fundamental crisis of Government is a crisis of trust in the institutions of Government (checks & balances). The Executive spins its fatal sophistry, while disloyal and incompetent interests usurped our nation’s civil and military power, spawning a host of real threats to liberty and to national security. They passing laws, like the NDAA, which prey on the resources and spirits of citizens. Thanks to Forrest, we persevere…” exclaimed activist, journalist, and plaintiff Alexa O’Brien.

http://www.sparrowmedia.net/2012/09/ndaa-obama-hedges-permanent-injunction/

[Luminous Animal]

5. The injunction here (excellent reading)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/105768455/12-Civ-00331-2012-09-12-Permanent-Injunction

[Luminous Animal]

6. And excerpt from the decision that supports what many fine DUers were arguing from the beginning...

The Government did not--and does not--generally agree or anywhere argue that activities protected by the First Amendment could not subject an individual to indefinite military detention under § 1021(b)(2). The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides for greater protection: it prohibits Congress from passing any law abridging speech and associational rights. To the extent that § 1021(b)(2) purports to encompass protected First Amendment activities, it is unconstitutionally overbroad.

It is horrifying that the Government could not make the argument that First Amendment activity would not subject U.S. citizens to indefinite military detention.

[Luminous Animal]

7. More from the decision...

The due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment require that an individual understand what conduct might subject him or her to criminal or civil penalties. Here, the stakes get no higher: indefinite military detention--potential detention during a war on terrorism that is not expected to end in the foreseeable future, if ever. The Constitution requires specificity--and that specificity is absent from § 1021(b)(2).

[Fire Walk With Me]

9. KICK

[Luminous Animal]

10. Memories...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=825277

[Hell Hath No Fury]

11. Bravo!

Thank you from all of us.

[chill_wind]

12. K & R.

Thank you Hedges et al and thank you to Judge Katherine Forrest!

Marcy Wheeler outlines the reasons for just how short-lived the "shelf-life of this joy" may end up being, as she puts it here:

http://www.emptywheel.net/2012/09/13/doj-files-appeal-further-thoughts-on-hedges-and-the-lawfarewittes-analysis/#more-29816

but we should celebrate these Americans and this day completely in the meantime.

[KoKo]

13. K&R....!