Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government The Military United States Your Rights Online Politics

Federal Court Rejects NDAA's Indefinite Detention, Issues Injunction 301

Posted by timothy
from the hope-this-change-sticks dept.
First time accepted submitter Arker writes "A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction late Wednesday to block provisions of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act that would allow the military to indefinitely detain anyone it accuses of knowingly or unknowingly supporting terrorism. The Obama administration had argued, inter alia, that the plaintiffs, including whistleblower and transparency advocate Daniel Ellsberg and Icelandic Member of Parliament Birgitta Jonsdottir lacked standing, but Judge Katherine Forrest didnt buy it. Given recent statements from the administration, it seems safe to say this will be the start of a long court battle."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Federal Court Rejects NDAA's Indefinite Detention, Issues Injunction

Comments Filter:
  • by colinrichardday (768814) <colin.day.6@hotmail.com> on Thursday May 17, 2012 @10:46AM (#40027811)

    It's about time someone stood up to the nightmare of a police state.

    • by ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @10:48AM (#40027841)

      I love that they could indefinitely detain for "unknowingly supporting terrorism." Oh, that plumber you hired to fix your pipes was actually a terrorist? You supported him therefore you supported terrorism. WAT?

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 17, 2012 @11:14AM (#40028087)

        Oh, that plumber you hired to fix your pipes was actually a terrorist?

        My good friends call me Harry.

      • by MisterSquid (231834) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @11:19AM (#40028143)

        I love that they could indefinitely detain for "unknowingly supporting terrorism."

        To say nothing about the ways in which US politicians and government operatives make back-channel deals that support terrorism they find politically expedient. You won't see anyone being detained for that.

        • by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @11:24AM (#40028219)

          I love that they could indefinitely detain for "unknowingly supporting terrorism."

          To say nothing about the ways in which US politicians and government operatives make back-channel deals that support terrorism they find politically expedient. You won't see anyone being detained for that.

          That's because what they do is knowingly support terrorism, which is completely different.

      • by artor3 (1344997) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @11:43AM (#40028519)

        It only applies to foreign nationals who are arrested overseas (i.e. not on American soil). If you're a citizen or a legal immigrant, you're safe. If you're arrested in America, you're safe. It's not a good law, but my god, does anyone on this site have any idea what it even says?

        • by mspohr (589790) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @12:04PM (#40028783)

          Even being a US citizen doesn't protect you.
          Anwar al-Awlaki was a US citizen living in Yemen who was thought to have ties to al-Qaeda. His 16 year old son was killed a few weeks later. They were executed by the US (using unmanned drones) without a trial or even charges being brought in the US.
          The Wikipedia page gives a fairly comprehensive biography. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki [wikipedia.org]

          • by artor3 (1344997)

            That had nothing to do with the NDAA. And yes, we should have had an in absentia trial first, but then you'd just be complaining it was a show trial.

          • Is that why everyone was cheering when bin Laden was killed by Navy SEALS? Let's face it, we went down the slippery slope of extra-judicial killings a VERY long time ago.

            Here's the deal: you either accept that we are in an actual war against people who are trying to kill any Americans they can get their hands on, and we use military methods to deal with the threat. Or you accept that we are dealing with a bunch of common criminals, and we bring in the detectives, the cops, and the judges.

            One or the other. Y

            • by mspohr (589790)

              I think you have a very good point.
              The military is really not well suited to track down terrorists and bring them to justice. They are better suited for use where the enemy is also an army. Terrorists operate in small cells and it requires detectives and cops to track them down and bring them to justice. The invasion of Afghanistan was unnecessary since they were willing to turn over al Qaeda and it baffles me why we are still there when al Qaeda has been absent for years. (Iraq was never a terrorist th

    • About time (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 17, 2012 @10:58AM (#40027925)

      It's also about time we admit to ourselves that police state momentum (i.e. continuous expansion of government) is now in full swing and supported by ALL mainstream political interests. And the next step is admitting that those political interests work purely for themselves, and not "the people" as they claim (increasingly loudly).

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Grishnakh (216268)

        Not just "political interests" (which I assume you mean political parties and candidates and other well-connected people or organizations), it's the regular American people too. Anyone who votes Republican, except maybe the die-hard Ron Paul people who aren't also Tea Party supporters, obviously supports a police state. And then anyone who supports Obama (which is most Democrats) strongly supports a police state too, because they're so dumb that they support anything Obama supports, even if back during Bu

      • Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MobyDisk (75490) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @01:43PM (#40030341) Homepage

        The step after that, is admitting that this is also supported by mainstream Americans. Here at Slashdot we would like to think that it is the people -vs- the politicians. But in reality the people support this too. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, most Americans trust the government and the military to look out for them, and so they support warrant-less wiretapping and infinite detention because they perceive that it protects them from terrorists.

        I'm sorry, but the enemy is us.

    • by Sloppy (14984) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @11:10AM (#40028045) Homepage Journal

      It's about time someone stood up..

      ..so that we don't have to. The last thing I want in November when electing congresspeople, senators, and presidents, is to be stuck with that responsibility. It's about time someone relieved us all from having to think about the kind of relationship we want there to be, between our government and its people.

    • by Lumpy (12016) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @11:16AM (#40028121) Homepage

      Dont worry, the judge will find himself on a free vacation at Gitmo for his crimes against the government.

  • by crazyjj (2598719) * on Thursday May 17, 2012 @10:49AM (#40027855)

    When it makes it to the Supreme Court, they'll affirm the law. They've been asleep at the wheel for 10 years, why wake up now? I'm pretty sure that most of them aren't even aware that there *is* a 4th Amendment at this point. And they probably think Habeas Corpus was a Roman emperor.

    • by medcalf (68293)
      Ten? Try nearly eighty.
    • You sure about that? I could see SCOTUS going the other way. In all likelihood, they will strike down the healthcare law due to the way in which is was codified. Hopefully they will do the same with this too.

      • by crazyjj (2598719) * on Thursday May 17, 2012 @11:00AM (#40027947)

        You mean like they struck down the Patriot Act, retroactive immunity for illegal wiretapping, and all the other laws that have made torture and infinite detention with no trial legal?

        • by Shotgun (30919) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @11:31AM (#40028303)

          Your statement, combined with your sig, gave me a serious headache.

          The Republicans are offering coporate slavery.
          The Democrats are offering government bureaucrat slavery.
          They both are willing to use the military, the "War on [Terror|Drugs|Poverty|Obesity|Bullying|CO2]" to get their way.

          • by Grishnakh (216268) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @12:37PM (#40029287)

            I think you're mistaken.

            The Republicans are offering corporate slavery.
            The Democrats are offering corporate slavery.
            There's some minor differences in the particular corporations they would enslave you to.

            • Exactly so. Anyone who's not part of the mainstream political establishment, including Tea Partiers, Occupiers, and libertarians, should be working together to fight the corporatism that strangles us all. Instead, activists on the left and the right are assiduously kept distracted by hating the other side, often by being fed caricatures of the other side's motivations.

        • by cpu6502 (1960974) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @11:32AM (#40028321)

          The Court can only strike-down cases brought before them, and the government (both Bush and Obama) have been very careful to make sure that doesn't happen. They drop the case before it ever has a chance to reach the justices.

          BUT when the justices have reviewed cases, they've typically sided with the Constitution, such as striking down the Washington and other city's laws that effectively-forbid ownership of guns. Striking down a law that forced states to build nuclear disposal sites. Striking down warrantless searches of our cellphones. Striking down random stops along highways (unless there's a specific & urgent need: such as locating an escaped prisoner). The Court of the last ten years has done more to limit the government's power than the Court from 1940 to 2000 (which was expansionist).

          • Problem is that not all of their rulings have been as good as those. One of the biggest was the Citizens United case where they seem to have produced the correct ruling for the individual suing, but screwed the nation. Yes they should have been able to produce and release their moved but rights granted to corporations is where they went wrong. In looking and reading about the case it seems to have gone wrong when Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart arguing for the Federal Elections Commission stated
        • by cpu6502 (1960974) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @11:40AM (#40028457)

          >>>Libertarians think they're getting freedom by eliminating the government. They're just getting corporate slavery.

          More like freedom where you choose which corporation you want to deal with. (1) Libertarians are not Anarchists. Just as Fascist/corporatists are not Communists. Libertarians don't want to eliminate government completely but instead, to quote Jefferson, "If it were possible to have no government, we would. But we need to government in order to protect our rights." He also said, "No man has a right to harm another, and that's all the government should restrain him."

          (2) It is government that gave Comcast its monopoly over my neighborhood. If government were downsized, the monopoly would be gone. Other companies like Apple or MSN or Time-Warner could enter the market and give us some choice.

          (3) And of course we'd still have safety nets for the poor. We'd still have Food Stamps, Housing assistance, welfare checks, and unemployment. I repeat: Libertarians are SMALL government, not no-government anarchists.

          • And of course we'd still have safety nets for the poor. We'd still have Food Stamps, Housing assistance, welfare checks, and unemployment. I repeat: Libertarians are SMALL government, not no-government anarchists.

            That's not what most people who identify as libertarian usually say. Much more often, libertarians say that a truly free market would lead to an increase in prosperity that would make those measures so much less necessary that voluntary charity would be sufficient to meet the needs of those who genuinely can't take care of themselves.

          • Dissonance (Score:4, Funny)

            by ThatsNotPudding (1045640) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @01:36PM (#40030183)

            If government were downsized, the monopoly would be gone. Other companies like Apple...

            /head explodes

          • by R3d M3rcury (871886) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @01:57PM (#40030611) Journal

            It is government that gave Comcast its monopoly over my neighborhood. If government were downsized, the monopoly would be gone. Other companies like Apple or MSN or Time-Warner could enter the market and give us some choice.

            Well, that depends on where you live, doesn't it?

            It's also quite possible that Comcast would come in and build it's network--you know, place their wires under the street--and offer service. Time-Warner would come in, look at the expense on running their own wires, see they have competition which is going to limit how much they can charge and how quickly they will make back that investment and say, "Nah. Not worth it."

            On the other hand, if The Government lays down the wires and allows these companies to use them to deliver services (charging them all an equal fee for use of the wires), then you might actually have quite a bit of competition. Of course, that wouldn't be a good thing because "Government Owning Stuff Is Bad."

            And, depending further upon where you live, Comcast might show up, take one look, and say, "No way would this be worth it." Then you got nothing.

        • To be fair, the only provision that you mention that the SCOTUS has upheld was the "material support" provision. It was the 9th Circuit that upheld the retroactive immunity, not SCOTUS.

          Most of the other Patriot Act and FISA laws get dropped by the government when they get to court. They know, for instance, that courts are not going to uphold a law that prevents people from talking about secret warrants, so they bow out instead.

    • by Hillgiant (916436)

      Well, all Very Serious People know the Founding Fathers had their fingers crossed when they wrote the Bill of Rights. They only meant for the 2nd and 10th to be taken seriously.

  • Signing Statement? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hatta (162192) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @10:50AM (#40027863) Journal

    What about Obama's signing statement in which he decried the very power he was accepting by signing the NDAA? Do you mean to tell me Obama was dishonest in his disapproval of infinite detention? Shocking.

    The crazy thing is some people actually bought the argument that this clause was forced on him by Congress. The fact that he's defending it in court makes it absolutely clear what his stance on infinite detention is.

    • by poetmatt (793785)

      This is something that was never 100% clear for me: where is the responsibility shared vs divided when it comes to the DOJ attorneys, or any particular area of government's own sanctioned attorneys? Is it entirely at the direction of the president that they function, or who is responsible if they are advocating a position in a particular case?

      • by Hatta (162192) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @11:08AM (#40028023) Journal

        Obama directed the DOJ not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. He could do the same with any other law. This is why his argument that "we have to enforce the law" when it comes to Cannabis dispensaries [laweekly.com] is entirely bankrupt.

        In that situation, we put the Justice Department in a very difficult place if we're telling them, "This is supposed to be against the law, but we want you to turn the other way." That's not something we're going to do.

        That's not a difficult place at all, and entirely within his powers as the chief law enforcement officer in the country. He has the power to set priorities for federal law enforcement, including priorities of zero.

        If you're someone who wants to laud Obama for his Civil Rights record, ask yourself how many gay people there are in jail for being gay. Then ask yourself how many Cannabis smokers there are in jail. Why not attack the bigger problem first?

        • by trum4n (982031)
          I think the fact that racists, hate crimes and bigots still exist is a far larger issue than pot heads.
          • by Hatta (162192) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @11:26AM (#40028259) Journal

            Yes, but anti cannabis bigotry is far, far worse than anti-gay bigotry. Around 5-10% of the population is gay. Around 10-20% of the population smokes pot. Neither of these groups pose any threat to anyone whatsoever.

            Gay people might get fired because of bigotry. Worst case scenario one is lynched, once a decade or so and there's a huge outcry of sympathy.

            Pot smokers on the other hand go to jail regularly. Persecution of pot smokers is official government policy. When a harmless pot head is killed by a police officer, the officer generally gets a paid vacation for his trouble.

            Every time a pot smoker is arrested, that's a hate crime.

            • by snowgirl (978879)

              When a harmless pot head is killed by a police officer, the officer generally gets a paid vacation for his trouble.

              It is standard process that an officer is placed on paid administrative leave in ALL shooting deaths. So, it doesn't matter if the officer shoots a "harmless pot head" or a machine-gun-wielding terrorist roaming a college campus. They get paid administrative leave.

              This is to allow them time to investigate and see if the action taken was justified. "Why don't them place them on unpaid leave during that time?" Because you cannot punish a person prior to due process taking its course.

          • by cpu6502 (1960974)

            Well you shouldn't. If someone calls me a "white honkey" I am not harmed by that act. It's just words and I can walk away from the idiot.

            If someone beats me up, I can pull my gun and kill him. Per my natural right of self-defense.

            BUT if the government has control over my body, and forbids me from smoking weed (or snorting coke) (or drinking alcohol) then that is a FAR more dangerous thing. It means the politicians and bureaucrats have control over my body, like a Middle Ages lord over his serf, and ca

        • That's not a difficult place at all, and entirely within his powers as the chief law enforcement officer in the country. He has the power to set priorities for federal law enforcement, including priorities of zero.

          He also fails to uphold the Constitution by doing so, a clear violation of his oath of office. There is no wiggle room here, from Article II:

          he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed

        • by fwice (841569)

          Pot smokers can choose not to smoke pot.

          Gay people cannot choose not to be gay.

          That is why the Gay rights issue is a higher priority.

    • by crazyjj (2598719) *

      Obama's only a hero on the stump.

    • by cpu6502 (1960974)

      The SCOTUS has already ruled that signing statements have no legal standing. They apply to the president currently in charge, but not future presidents.

      Also Obama's white house was the source of these two sentences. His administration specifically asked Congress to add them to the NDAA. So he's trying to pretend "I don't want indefinite detainment" while working behind the scenes to add it to the bill. I thought Clinton and Bush were skilled liars/deceptors, but Obama makes them look like amateurs.

      • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

        by Hatta (162192)

        I thought Clinton and Bush were skilled liars/deceptors, but Obama makes them look like amateurs.

        I dunno, it doesn't get any more amateurish than this. It's blatantly obvious to anyone who looks what a turncoat authoritarian bastard this mother fucker is. And yet people still fall for it.

        • by cpu6502 (1960974) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @11:16AM (#40028109)

          >>>yet people still fall for it.

          Exactly. Even when I post direct articles from reputable sources like NYtimes or USAtoday about Obama assassinating 3 Americans (including a 16-year-old boy) without giving them their constitutional right to a trial to prove their innocence, there are some people who refuse to believe it. And continue loving the man. (Or just call me racist against black people.)

        • by guibaby (192136)

          Who'd have thought Nixon was one of our more honest presidents?

    • by marcop (205587) <marcop&slashdot,org> on Thursday May 17, 2012 @11:12AM (#40028065) Homepage

      What about it? He should be thrown out of office on treason against the constitution. I'm not arguing whether or not any of his other policies are good or bad, and will not state my political affiliation. However, when a president blatantly violates a basic freedom that so many Americans have fought to protect, a freedom he has sworn to protect, then he deserves treason charges. And yes, GWB deserved it also for the exact same reasons.

      But the sheep that live in this country will ignore it and instead either applaud or crucify him for his social policies. Pitiful.

      • by niado (1650369)
        By that logic over half our presidents in the 20th century probably should have been thrown out of office.
    • What most people don't know or understand is that his signing statement or an executive order means nothing if the law says something else.
    • by artor3 (1344997) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @11:36AM (#40028389)

      You've been tricked by a summary rife with propaganda.

      The the lying demagogue who wrote the article states, "Given recent statements from the administration, it seems safe to say this will be the start of a long court battle." The deceitful bastard was clever enough to include a hyperlink, knowing you wouldn't click on it but would instead just accept it as gospel. But go ahead, click on it. The recent statements referred to are from a joint letter by several former officials. Their names?

      Edwin Meese - Republican Attorney General under Reagan
      Michael Mukasey - Republican Attorney General under George W Bush
      Michael Chertoff - Republican Secretary of Homeland Security under George W Bush
      Steven G Bradbury - Republican Head of the OLC under George W Bush
      Daniel Dell'Orto - Republican Lawyer for the DOD under George W Bush
      David Rivkin - Republican Legal Counsel to both Reagan and George HW Bush, and the guy behind the lawsuit against the ACA
      Charles Stimson - Republican Deputy Assistant Secretary in charge of "Detainee Affairs" under George W Bush
      Paul Butler - Can't find any details on this guy, but he's definitely not the Democrat of the same name who died in the 60s.
      Seven Engel - One of the lawyers in the anti-ACA lawsuit.
      Paul Rosenzsweig - Member of the Heritage Foundation, a well known right-wing think tank.

      Do you really think anyone on that list is speaking for the Obama administration? Sadly, the truth takes time to dig up, and in that time hundreds of people have no doubt seen the summary and your post, and fallen for the propaganda. What hope does truth have against such well-engineered lies?

      • by cpu6502 (1960974) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @11:55AM (#40028659)

        Irrelevant. It was OBAMA who told Congress to add those two sentences for indefinite detainment w/o trial. The only reason he would do that is so he can use the power to grab Americans off the streets, accuse them of being terrorists, and then lock them away for 10 years w/o a trial to defend their innocence. (Probably in Guantanamo... the place Obama promised to close but never did.) Obama also assassinated 3 americans in Africa, including one 16-year-old boy, and without giving them their recognized right to trial. He is NOT the honest man you believe him to be.

        • by artor3 (1344997) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @12:02PM (#40028757)

          So it's irrelevant that the summary is a lie? Sure, yeah, who gives a fuck about the truth when you have a political axe to grind.

          Furthermore, Obama did not insist on the addition of "those two sentences for indefinite detainment". The indefinite detention section was already there, but only applied to Al Qaeda. Obama asked for it to be expanded to cover other terrorist groups. But it can't be used to "grab Americans off the streets", as you claim, because it also says:

          (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

          But let me guess... that's also irrelevant. No truth is relevant if it goes against your limitless hatred.

        • by DragonWriter (970822) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @12:48PM (#40029447)

          It was OBAMA who told Congress to add those two sentences for indefinite detainment w/o trial.

          There are more than two sentences about that.

          The "two sentences" the administration fought to have added, once it was clear that the Congress wouldn't pass the NDAA without indefinite detention language, were the ones that provide that the indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA neither "limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force" nor affect any "law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States".

          The President stated at the time that the original language would be unconstitutional and unacceptable and require a veto, and -- in his signing statement -- that with the new language the provisions were still undesirable, and unnecessary since they had no effect beyond what had already been done by the AUMF.

          The court in its preliminary injunction disagreed and said that as a principal of construction statutes should be read as doing something, and that the something that the NDAA did on this issue appears to be unconstitutional. The difference between the court on the administration isn't over whether the NDAA doing anything beyond what had been previously been found to be authorized by the AUMF and found constitutional by the Supreme Court in cases challenging actions under the AUMF would be unconstitutional, the difference is over whether the NDAA, on its own terms, actually does anything at all on the issue.

          Note that this has set up a controversy under which a court siding with either the administration or those challenging the law would find no new power under the NDAA -- if the administration is right, the NDAA has no effect on indefinite detention powers regardless of its Constitutionality. If the challengers are right, the NDAA's detention provisions are unconstitutional, and, as such, have no effect.

          (Probably in Guantanamo... the place Obama promised to close but never did.)

          Congress blocking funds from being used for that purpose repeatedly since Obama came to office has nothing to do with that, right?

      • by reboot246 (623534)
        Yes, the letter you refer to was written and signed by Republicans (the bad kind of Republicans).

        But you failed to notice that the effort to repeal the objectionable part of the NDAA is a bipartisan effort led in part by Republicans (the good kind of Republicans), Reps. Ron Paul and Justin Amash along with help from some Democrats (the good kind of Democrats) like Rep. Adam Smith.

        We don't have many friends in Congress nowadays. At least give the ones we do have some credit when they try to do the right thin
    • What about Obama's signing statement in which he decried the very power he was accepting by signing the NDAA?

      If you read the actual signing statement, he didn't deride the indefinite detention power, largely because the NDAA did not create any new indefinite detention power. Specifically, while he objected to earlier language regarding indefinite detention than was in the final bill which would have expanded indefinite detention power -- and objected to other provisions in the bill -- his signing statement

  • Obama is going to kick your terrorist-loving asses!!!

  • When the merde hits the fan, we might need to use it on those "security officials" who wrote a PDF to Congress and the judge demanding that the NDAA indefinite clause be left untouched & enforced.

  • by spidercoz (947220) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @10:57AM (#40027905) Journal
    They apply to everyone or they mean nothing. James T. Kirk taught me that, and I agree with him.
  • I am on the same side of an issue as Daniel Ellsberg. That's probably a first.
    • by DesScorp (410532)

      I am on the same side of an issue as Daniel Ellsberg. That's probably a first.

      I'm fine with Ellsberg filing the lawsuit. I don't often agree with him, but he's a citizen. But an "Icelandic member of parliament" should have exactly zero standing on this unless we've snatched an Icelander, which to my knowledge, we haven't done. This reminds me of those Spanish judges issuing "international arrest warrants" for various and sundry "war criminals". There may be some rotten guys on their list, but a Spanish judge has no business issuing a warrant for an international that's never done any

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Actually, she does have standing. As a member of parliament, she could be expected to travel to the US for official state visits. Her records have already been subpoenaed by the DOJ because of her association with WikiLeaks. Therefore, if her simple presence in the US could make her subject to indefinite detention, she does have standing - remember, she was afraid to come to the US to testify for that exact reason. Remember, the US Constitution doesn't apply only to US citizens, it applies to anyone sub

      • by Jiro (131519)

        According to TFA, the government refused to say whether the Icelandic parliament member was violating the law or could be jailed. Perhaps we haven't snatched any Icelanders yet, but the government is still reserving the right to do so in the future and specifically is reserving the right to snatch this particular person.

        Of course, the government probably wouldn't snatch any Icelanders, but that would be because of selective prosecution--the law lets them snatch anyone. If the law lets them snatch anyone,

  • by b4dc0d3r (1268512) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @11:15AM (#40028101)

    First time accepted submitter Arker writes inter alia when he meant to say either

    • "among other things"
    • "I copied and pasted from the article", or
    • "I'm a first year law student"

    In context, the usage is not clear, but I'm guessing the first one. In case it helps someone who likewise wanted to know if it could possibly be used as an innuendo. I don't like learning new words that can't be innuendo'ed.

  • All I saw was a letter from a congressman signed by former members of staff.

  • The actual ruling (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) on Thursday May 17, 2012 @11:23AM (#40028213) Homepage
    For those who would like to read the actual 68 page ruling from Judge Katherine Forrest [uscourts.gov].

Never invest your money in anything that eats or needs repainting. -- Billy Rose

Working...