While Rep. Justin Amash Pushes His Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, A Judge Has Temporarily Blocked Portions of the NDAA on First and Fifth Amendment Grounds

On Wednesday, a federal judged
blocked Section 1021, (AKA the indefinite detainment provision)

of the the highly controversial National Defense Authorization
Act
(NDAA). U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest agreed with
journalist Chris Hedges, writer Noam Chomsky, Mr. Pentagon Papers
Daniel Ellsberg, and several other plaintiffs who argued in January
that the NDAA might just have a chilling effect on free
expression. Forrest also agreed that it violated the Fifth
Amendment right to due process and that the thing just didn’t
pass
Constitutional muster.”


So says AP
, Forrest erred on the side of freedom:

“An individual could run the risk of substantially supporting or
directly supporting an associated force without even being aware
that he or she was doing so,” the judge said.

She said the law also gave the government authority to move
against individuals who engage in political speech with views that
“may be extreme and unpopular as measured against views of an
average individual.

“That, however, is precisely what the First Amendment protects,”
Forrest wrote.

Hedges, the author, FYI, of the kick-ass volume
War is a Force That Give Us Meaning
, has interviewed
members of 17 different terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda and
the Taliban. Hedges testified in January, when he and several other
people sued to overturn the law, that he has had to rethink his
reporting for fear of running afoul of the NDAA. He dubbed the
decision a victory for free speech and called it “momentous.” it
is, however, temporary. 


The New York Times
also notes why the judge changed her
mind:

Judge Forrest, whom Mr. Obama appointed last year, noted that
Justice Department lawyers repeatedly declined to say that the
plaintiffs’ conduct would not make them subject to being detained.
Her ruling was celebrated by civil liberties advocates as an
unexpected victory for individual rights in an era in which courts
have largely acquiesced to sweeping claims of national security
powers by the government.

But it also drew a puzzled reaction from some legal specialists,
who argued that the practical effect of the injunction was
uncertain. They said it was not clear what it meant to enjoin the
enforcement of a statute in which Congress offered its
interpretation of another statute, the 2001 use-of-force
authorization.

Judge Forrest also said her preliminary injunction was “pending
further proceedings in this court or remedial action by Congress
mooting the need for such further proceedings.” The timing of her
decision aligned closely with a renewed push in the House to impose
explicit limits on the government’s power to use indefinite
detention in cases that arise on domestic soil.

Here is RT video of Hedges discussing his the lawsuit and why he
fears the NDAA, from earlier this month.

Meanwhile, scrappy young Congressman and advocate for actually
reading bills before he votes on them, Justin Amash, is
preparing to speak on the House floor about his (and Democrat Adam
Smith’s) amendment to the NDAA. The amendment, which would
explicitly say that the NDAA cannot apply to accused domestic
terrorists, could potentially come up for a vote as early as
Friday. Rep. Ron Paul is a fan, but the number of supporters are
seemingly fairly small. The Huffington Post noted that

“Smith was unwilling to say if he thought the measure would
pass.”

Remember, the NDAA may not be as bad as the tiny Alex Jones who
lives in the head of every sensible, government-fearing individual
screams. But it’s bad, and it’s vague, And its fans tend to not be
fans
of liberty.
For example, Rep. Tom Rooney, the backer of

H.R. 347
, today accused
Amash of wanting to “coddle” terrorists
 for his opposition
to the NDAA. And National Review‘s Andrew C.
McCarthy is
very opposed
to the “libertarian extremist”‘s amendment,
calling it a “Terrorist Bill of Rights.”

And really, it would be terrific if government could at least
decide on the question of whether they get to indefinitely detain
you or not. The vagueness of it (which is tied to whatever the hell
the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force actually
allows
) makes it harder to fight against and gives fodder to
people like McCarthy who think to object to the
NDAA is just fearmongering.
 

Reason on the
NDAA