Skip to main content

Not just "No!" but "Hell, NO!": Judge Katherine Forrest refuses to back down on indefinite detention

Judge Katherine Forrest: the answer
to the question, "Is there anyone left
out there with integrity and guts?"
So far Judge Katherine Forrest of New York has done considerably more than, say, Delaware's gutless Congressional delegation, to resist Federal detention of American citizens approved in the recent NDAA of 2012.

She had already ruled, in response to a suit brought by Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, and Chris Hedges, against indefinite detention.

The Feds then came back with three counter-arguments:

1.  (whining) We haven't detained any of these men yet, so they have no standing to bring suit.

2. (posturing) How dare you tie the President's hands in wartime?

3. (spinning) OK, but this only applies to these three guys, right?  We can still do what we want to anybody else.

Forrest removed all doubt in yesterday's eight-page order, as the New York Times reports:

But on Wednesday, Judge Forrest said that her order still stood — and that, contrary to the government’s narrow interpretation of it, her injunction applied broadly and not just to the named plaintiffs.
“Put more bluntly, the May 16 order enjoined enforcement of Section 1021(b)(2) against anyone until further action by this, or a higher, court — or by Congress,” she wrote. “This order should eliminate any doubt as to the May 16 order’s scope.”

It is amazing the near-complete lack of attention this order has drawn from the MSM, especially in an election year.

Or maybe that's the point.

Comments

Andrew R Groff said…
Judge Forrest is a true, freedom-loving American of the highest order. Her courageous stand against executive tyranny, and steadfast devotion to our constitutional rights is to be commended and supported. I have chosen to run for US Senate for these very reasons. Judge Forrest is a here and role model for us all.
delacrat said…
Andrew,

You have my vote.

delacrat
Hank Foresman said…
Wow, I wonder how Barrack feels about appointing her to the District Court.
Dana Garrett said…
I wonder how many wingnuts hate this order simply because people like Chomsky are the plaintiffs.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...