NDAA goes to court

[shabby]

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/20...n-citizen-know-if-they-can-be-target-of-ndaa/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/29/journalists-us-anti-terrorism-law-ndaa?newsfeed=true

At the start of the first hearing on a lawsuit challenging the Homeland Battlefield Act, a federal judge appeared to be “extremely skeptical” that those pursuing the challenge had grounds to sue the US government. However, by the end of the hearing, the judge acknowledged plaintiffs had made some strong arguments on why there was reason to be concerned about the Act

... the lack of definition of terms such as “substantial support” or “associated forces,” which appear in the law. Without clearly knowing what “substantial support” for terrorism or “associated forces” of terrorist groups could be, Forrest asked, “How does the common citizen know?”

The judge said, “If people weren’t worried before those series of questions, they could worry about it now,” she said. And, with regards to Hedges, who filed the lawsuit against the government, she added, “It sounded like Mr. Hedges was all over co-belligerents.”

Looks like the ndaa is being challenged in court right now, not by terrorists but by journalists, who would be labelled terrorists under the ndaa.

 

[cybrsage]

What is the NDAA?

 

[shabby]

You know the national defense authorization act, the indefinite detention bill.

 

[cybrsage]

Nope, don't know it. Can you quote the pieces/parts you are talking about?

 

[shabby]

They're in the articles and video posted above.

 

[cybrsage]

Oh that is the section where they say they do not have to arrest and hold a citizen, right? The one which, if any president tried to use to hold a citizen without trial, would be very quickly impeached for violating the Constitution AFTER a SCOTUS ruling on the issue.

There was a thread on it awhile back. That portion should be tossed out...it is completely unable to be used to hold a citizen without trial.

 

[shabby]

So that's what you meant, yes this thread http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2208444

 

[SilthDraeth]

Question: Is cybrsage trolling?
Answer: Is cybrsage posting?




j/k cybrsage.

Back on topic, hopefully this gets thrown out. Clearly unconstitutional. But then most people only care about legality of things until it affects them negatively.

"First they came for the communists
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me."

 

[cybrsage]

There is already SCOTUS precident which says the portion in the law they are suing over is unconstitutional. If anyone tried to enforce said provision, the other side of the aisle would instantly start impeachment proceedings with good cause. If a President purposefully violates a SCOTUS ruling, they have already lost.

Also, the provision does not say they HAVE TO arrest and detain citizens, it in fact says they do not have to do so. Stupid wording, to be sure, as it clearly implies they CAN arrest and detain...which is clearly unconstitutional.

Non-citizens non-US Persons, yeah, they can be arrested and detained...not positive about non-citizen US Persons, though. I am not sure a case about such a person made it to the SCOTUS.