Federal Court Rejects NDAA's Indefinite Detention, Issues Injunction

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."

Re:Signing Statement?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Just wow.

How does State Spooge taste, slave?

Someone please free us

[Sloppy]

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.

Re:A small ray of hope

[Anonymous Coward]

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

My good friends call me Harry.

Re:A small ray of hope

[WrongSizeGlass]

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.

Dissonance

[ThatsNotPudding]

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

/head explodes