NDAA Military Detention Law Blocked by New York Judge!

[Mad Scientist]

From Bloomberg:
Military Detention Law Blocked by New York Judge - Bloomberg

A federal judge temporarily blocked enforcement of a part of the National Defense Authorization Act that opponents claim could subject them to indefinite military detention for activities including news reporting and political activism

But how could this be? I've been told by SFC Ollie that indefinite detention of US Citizens has "been debunked"! Liability says I "continue to misunderstand the bill".If so then why did a Judge just temporarily block the Bill?

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan today ruled in favor of a group of writers and activists who sued President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the Defense Department, claiming a provision of the act, signed into law Dec. 31, puts them in fear that they could be arrested and held by U.S. armed forces.
“The statute at issue places the public at undue risk of having their speech chilled for the purported protection from al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and ‘associated forces’ - i.e., ‘foreign terrorist organizations,’” Forrest said in an opinion today. “The vagueness of Section 1021 does not allow the average citizen, or even the government itself, to understand with the type of definiteness to which our citizens are entitled, or what conduct comes within its scope.”
The plaintiffs claim Section 1021 is vague and can be read to authorize their detention based on speech and associations that are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Exactly the section I pointed out previously.

Ollie, Liability, joo got some splainin' to do!

 

[Liability]

From Bloomberg:
Military Detention Law Blocked by New York Judge - Bloomberg

A federal judge temporarily blocked enforcement of a part of the National Defense Authorization Act that opponents claim could subject them to indefinite military detention for activities including news reporting and political activism

But how could this be? I've been told by SFC Ollie that indefinite detention of US Citizens has "been debunked"! Liability says I "continue to misunderstand the bill".If so then why did a Judge just temporarily block the Bill?

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan today ruled in favor of a group of writers and activists who sued President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the Defense Department, claiming a provision of the act, signed into law Dec. 31, puts them in fear that they could be arrested and held by U.S. armed forces.
“The statute at issue places the public at undue risk of having their speech chilled for the purported protection from al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and ‘associated forces’ - i.e., ‘foreign terrorist organizations,’” Forrest said in an opinion today. “The vagueness of Section 1021 does not allow the average citizen, or even the government itself, to understand with the type of definiteness to which our citizens are entitled, or what conduct comes within its scope.”
The plaintiffs claim Section 1021 is vague and can be read to authorize their detention based on speech and associations that are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Exactly the section I pointed out previously.

Ollie, Liability, joo got some splainin' to do!

I gots no 'splainin' to do.

YOU and those "plaintiffs" are the ones contending that the section allows for some bizzaro-world interpretation.

It doesn't.

In reality, the law very clearly EXCLUDES Americans from the indefinite detention component. There really is no other coherent way to read that specific exclusion.

 

[Liability]

SEC. 1032. REQUIRED MILITARY CUSTODY FOR MEMBERS OF AL-QAEDA AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES.

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) in military custody as an unprivileged enemy belligerent pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) APPLICABILITY TO AL-QAEDA AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any covered person under section 1031(b) who is determined to be--

(A) a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an affiliated entity; and

(B) a participant in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(b) Requirement Inapplicable to United States Citizens- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

If they are niot required to do it to Americans, the nay-sayers insist the interpretation is that they MAY choose to do so just the same.

But that's silly.

Without a requirement to do so, who says that they are even ALLOWED to do so?

 

[Mad Scientist]

"Not Required" does not mean "Prohibited". The EXACT reason the suit was filed.

Not Required means the arresting Officer has the discretion whether to arrest or not.