Judge Forrest Comes Through Again

A New York federal judge shot down part of a controversial anti-terror law Wednesday that journalists and scholars worry could see them locked up indefinitely for speaking their minds.

Judge Katherine Forrest issued a ruling that permanently blocked a section of the National Defense Authorization Act signed by President Barack Obama at the end of last year authorizing the detention of US citizens accused of supporting terror groups.

[...]

The section of the law, signed by Obama on New Year’s Eve, allows the US military to detain anyone accused of supporting the Taliban or Al-Qaeda until “the end of hostilities.”

[...]

The suit was brought by activists, including former New York Times journalist Chris Hedges and outspoken academic Noam Chomsky, who said the law was vague and could be used to curtail reporters’ and other civilian citizens’ right to free speech guaranteed under the US Constitution’s First Amendment.

[...]

In her ruling, Forrest said the plaintiffs did “present evidence that First Amendment rights have already been harmed and will be harmed by the prospect of (the law) being enforced.

[...]

The court “permanently” halts enforcement of that part of the law after it issued a preliminary injunction against it in May, Forrest said, calling on Congress to reexamine the measure.
  Raw Story

I sometimes think Judge Forrest is the only thing standing between us and totalitarian government.

You May Not Be Able to Vote for Mitt Romney....

....but you sure can't vote for Barack Obama.

In May, following a March hearing, Judge Katherine Forrest issued an injunction against [the National Defense Authorization Act]; this week, in a final hearing in New York City, US government lawyers essentially asserted even more extreme powers - the power to entirely disregard the judge and the law. Indeed, on Monday, August 6, Obama's lawyers filed an appeal to the injunction - a profoundly important development that as of this writing has been scarcely reported.

In the March hearing, the US lawyers had confirmed that yes, the NDAA does give the president the power to lock up people like journalist Chris Hedges and peaceful activists like myself and other plaintiffs. Government attorneys have stated on record that even war correspondents could be locked up indefinitely under the NDAA. Judge Katherine Forrest had ruled for a temporary injunction against an unconstitutional provision in this law - after government attorneys refused to provide assurances to the court that plaintiffs and others would not be indefinitely detained for engaging in first amendment activities. Twice the government has refused to define what it means to be an "associated force", and it claimed the right to refrain from offering any clear definition of this term, or clear boundaries of power under this law. This past week's hearing was even more terrifying: incredibly, in this hearing, Obama's attorneys refused to assure the court, when questioned, that the NDAA's provision - one that permits reporters and others who have not committed crimes to be detained without trial - has not been applied by the US government anywhere in the world - after Judge Forrest's injunction. In other words, they were saying to a US judge that they could not or would not state whether Obama's government had complied with the legal injunction that she had lain down before them.
  alJazeera

Plugging Holes and Buying Time

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan, an Obama appointee, ruled on Wednesday that Section 1021 of the [National Defense Authorization Act] likely violated due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment and free press rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

A group of journalists and activists had filed a lawsuit against President Barack Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and a slew of lawmakers in January.

[...]

Lawyers representing the government had argued that the law merely restated the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), a law that allowed the President to “use all necessary and appropriate force” against those who had perpetrated the September 11 terrorist attacks. But Forrest noted that the AUMF was “tied directly and only to those involved in the events of 9/11,” while Section 1021 was much less specific.

Forrest said the issue could be resolved if Congress adds definitional language to the statute.

“Ever since the law has come out, and because the law is so amorphous, the problem is you’re not sure what you can say, what you can do and what context you can have,” [journalist Chris] Hedges told the Associated Press.

  Raw Story

I think that's the point.

UPDATE:  summary breakdown of the case and ruling
Good article. Snippets:

Significantly, the court here repeatedly told the DOJ that it could preclude standing for the plaintiffs if they were willing to state clearly that none of the journalistic and free speech conduct that the plaintiffs engage in could subject them to indefinite detention. But the Government refused to make any such representation.

The Government was unable to define precisely what ”direct” or “substantial” “support” means. . . .Thus, an individual could run the risk of substantially supporting or directly supporting an associated force without even being aware that he or she was doing so.

Unable.  Or unwilling.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.