Presidential Power

[bhunter]

Finding a common cause between two usually opposing groups is always interesting IMHO. Here both the left and right seek to limit government power.

Last week saw another setback for the Obama Administration. Led by Pulitzer Prize-winner journalist, Christopher Hedges, a group of plaintiffs that includes, among others: Pentagon Papers whistle-blower, Daniel Ellsberg; M.I.T. professor and American dissident, Noam Chomsky; several Occupy groups, and U.S. Day of Rage, won a temporary injunction against part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) signed by Mr. Obama back on December 31, 2011. Ironically, this set of plaintiffs would generally be regarded as part of Mr. Obama’s left-wing political base.

A further irony is that several conservative groups filed amicus (friend) briefs in support of the liberal plaintiffs. They are: the Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Inc., Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Restoring Liberty Action Committee, the Tenth Amendment Center, and the Center for Media and Democracy.

On May 16, 2012, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest suspended the enforcement of Section 1021 of the NDAA.
...
...
The plaintiffs argued that Section 1021 was vague to the point that the President could have virtually anyone picked up off of American streets by the U.S. military and taken to Club Gitmo for an indefinite, “throw-away-the-key” stay in the tropics. In agreeing with the plaintiffs, Judge Forrest found that terms such as: “substantially supported,” “directly supported,” or “associated forces” were not clearly defined.

From “Central View,” by William Hamilton, J.D., Ph.D.

Even if one trusts this particular President, the potential for abuse far outweighs any potential law enforcement advantage.

[budgetaudio6]

hope that damn thing gets thrown out

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by budgetaudio6

hope that damn thing gets thrown out

The statute or the lawsuit?

Regards,

D-Ray

[budgetaudio6]

the statute. the whole law. Right along with obama care.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by bhunter

Finding a common cause between two usually opposing groups is always interesting IMHO. Here both the left and right seek to limit government power.



Even if one trusts this particular President, the potential for abuse far outweighs any potential law enforcement advantage.

I wonder who wrote that provision, there's a ton of horse trading going on with the defense appropriations. All sorts of crap gets in there from both sides of the aisle as the congress authors and offers it up to potus for a sig.

I'm with Chomsky on a lot of things and certainly agree that granting sweeping powers to the Justice dept is not to be done lightly. Scrap that provision, absolutely. Since the Patriot Act was signed into law a large part of the protections afforded by the Constitution were put on hold. That's one big piece of crap legislation that should go bye-bye,IMO.

[BlueStreak]

It's nice seeing radicals left and right pulling together for a common cause.

I wish them luck in their endeavor.

No, I'm not voting for Romney.

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

....

No, I'm not voting for Romney.

Darn you to heck!



Pete

[Charles]

Is there anyone the federal government hasn't pissed off?

Chas

[whell]

Originally Posted by Charles

Is there anyone the federal government hasn't pissed off?

Chas

the list continues to get smaller by the day....

[d-ray657]

If you're going to make tough decisions, someone is going to be pissed off.

With respect to the OP though, it sounds like the judge is on the right track. When freedom of association and expression are to be restrained, there must be a compelling public interest and the restraint must be explicit and minimal as possible. It sounds like the language was anything but clear and explicit. Certainly could have a chilling effect.

Regards,

D-Ray