Skip to comments.Federal judge: Terror law violates 1st Amendment
Posted on 05/16/2012 4:38:12 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
NEW YORK (AP) -- A judge on Wednesday struck down a portion of a law giving the government wide powers to regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists, saying it left journalists, scholars and political activists facing the prospect of indefinite detention for exercising First Amendment rights.
U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan said in a written ruling that a single page of the law has a "chilling impact on First Amendment rights." She cited testimony by journalists that they feared their association with certain individuals overseas could result in their arrest because a provision of the law subjects to indefinite detention anyone who "substantially" or "directly" provides "support" to forces such as al-Qaida or the Taliban.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
“In March, the judge seemed sympathetic to the government’s arguments until she asked a government attorney if he could assure the plaintiffs that they would not face detention under the law for their work.”
This is a grave mistake that people are making. The answer to this should be clearly stated, and no judge should even consider “Intention” when trying to determine how the law will be used. If the law can violate constitutional protections then it is no good.
In the end- The judge got it right.
Agreed! The argument was inelegant, but it was a win for habeus corpus nevertheless. Like a drunk driver running over one of the black panther's hitmen. As bystanders begin to grasp what just happened the dramatic slow clap follows.
She said the law also gave the government authority to move against individuals who engage in political speech with views that “may be extreme and unpopular as measured against views of an average individual.
According to DHS that includes constitutionalists, second amendment activists, people who believe in the end times, preppers, pro-lifers, activists against globalism, etc. Anyone politically incorrect will fall under this category.
Finally, a judge woke up!!!
Romney and Rubio both supported NDAA
The boot lickers here have a flag sticker in their car window, you’ll never convince them they’ll be searched or detained during a crisis for their political speech, gun ownership, political affiliations, memberships, online postings, etc.
Besides they’ll argue this NDAA would have been effective against...ah...you know...that guy...umm...?
I just don’t trust a news article which will not site an HR, SB, or U.S. Code provision. I don’t trust any judge. I want to read it myself.