U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Hears Arguments in NDAA Battle (We Barely Could)


As Voice writer Nick Pinto previously reported, Forrest affirmed many of the plaintiffs' arguments in her district court ruling.

She levied an injunction on the law in September, but the Obama administration quickly filed an emergency appeal with the Second Circuit, which granted the president with a stay on the injunction. As it stands now, the law is still in place, and Obama signed off on a 2013 update of the law in January, which grants the military similarly vague authorities to detain Americans.

"For once, for once, a judge [was] willing to say this is officially unconstitutional no matter to whom, when, or under what circumstances," Ellsberg said during the press conference. "I'll be pleasantly surprised if [the Appeals Court judges] have the courage to do what she's done, and not simply be time-servers for their own advancement. I don't think [Forrester's ruling] will advance her very much."

Afran and Mayer are confident that they sufficiently argued their points, but declined to predict how the court will rule and noted that a decision on the case likely won't be rendered until months from now. Both sides of the lawsuit plan to appeal to the Supreme Court if they lose.

"If we don't prevail, we will appeal to the Supreme Court. If we do prevail, we'll call on the Obama administration to stop their practices," Mayer told the Voice. "Either way I think it's been a huge success because not only did we win [in district court], but we've given the administration and the military the distinct impression that they can't do this without a reaction from the citizens."

Previous Coverage:

-NDAA Suit Argued In Federal Court Yesterday

-Obama's NDAA Law Allowing Indefinite Military Detention of Citizens Ruled Unconstitutional

-Syke! Permanent Military Detention For American Citizens Is Totally Cool Again

-Appeals Panel Undermines Free Speech Victory Over NDAA


My Voice Nation Help
2 comments
eric.nelson745
eric.nelson745 topcommenter

If it has all been explained before, I want to hear it again. Namely, what are the legal points justifying and allowing U.S. citizens to be held indefinitely and without charge on or outside of U.S. jurisdiction? What provision in the Constitution allows Habeas Corpus to be suspended and under what conditions? I thought that O was against these tactics. What is his own thinking in this matter or is he relying completely on the judgment of Eric Holder? Of course, W did this. But what is the unique threat that these U.S. citizens pose to national security? As far as the foreign terrorists are concerned, it really shouldn't matter what happens to them in the Gitmo gulag. But American citizens be held indefinitely and without trial? That is totally unconscionable.

Now Trending

New York Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...