Federal judge blocks indefinite detention provision of NDAA

“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 wrote in her opinion. “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.”

Click to expand...

lpast said:

Shes not the last word...dont break out the champagne yet

Click to expand...

tessaesque said:

Good sign, even if the battle ain't over yet.

Click to expand...

lpast said:

Like everything this is a two sided sword....if they detain an individual that has the desire to kill as many americans as he can...thats a good thing...if they detain an innocent individual for no reason...then its a bad law....in this case, I have to go down on the side of caution, because i believe its too easy to grab the wrong person...actually I know how easy it is....now if you ask me if this law will go away entirely...my answer is a firm no

Click to expand...

tessaesque said:

My issue is indefinite detention. A right to trial is guaranteed by the constitution. US citizens should not be denied that right on the basis of terroristic tendancies.

Click to expand...

tessaesque said:

My issue is indefinite detention. A right to trial is guaranteed by the constitution. US citizens should not be denied that right on the basis of terroristic tendancies.

Click to expand...