Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter 3 Share on Facebook 4 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 11 (18 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   3 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

Score One for Hedges v. Obama

By       Message Stephen Lendman     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 5 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 4   Valuable 4   News 2  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H1 9/22/12

Author 194
Become a Fan
  (191 fans)
- Advertisement -

Score One for Hedges v. Obama


A small victory in a long battle.


Official Seal SDNY by wiki

by Stephen Lendman

On July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong called his Apollo 11 landing "one step for man, a giant leap for mankind."

Hedges v. Obama perhaps reflects a baby step, if temporary, for justice.

On September 12, Southern District of New York federal Judge Katherine B. Forrest blocked Obama's indefinite detention law. 

- Advertisement -

In her 112-page ruling, she called it "facially unconstitutional: it impermissibly impinges on guaranteed First Amendment rights and lacks sufficient definitional structure and protections to meet the requirements of due process."

She added that:

"If, following issuance of this permanent injunctive relief, the government detains individuals under theories of "substantially or directly supporting' associated forces, as set forth in" the National Defense Authorization Act, "and a contempt action is brought before this court, the government will bear a heavy burden indeed."

At issue is section 1021 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It states in part:

"Congress affirms that the authority of the president to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war."

- Advertisement -

"Covered persons" are defined as:

Anyone "who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5

 

Must Read 4   Valuable 4   News 2  
View Ratings | Rate It

I was born in 1934, am a retired, progressive small businessman concerned about all the major national and world issues, committed to speak out and write about them.

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The McCain-Lieberman Police State Act

Daniel Estulin's "True Story of the Bilderberg Group" and What They May Be Planning Now

Continuity of Government: Coup d'Etat Authority in America

America Facing Depression and Bankruptcy

Lies, Damn Lies and the Murdoch Empire

Mandatory Swine Flu Vaccine Alert