National Defense

While Rep. Justin Amash Pushes His Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, A Judge Has Temporarily Blocked Portions of the NDAA on First and Fifth Amendment Grounds


On Wednesday, a federal judged blocked Section 1021, (AKA the indefinite detainment provision) of the the highly controversial National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest agreed with journalist Chris Hedges, writer Noam Chomsky, Mr. Pentagon Papers Daniel Ellsberg, and several other plaintiffs who argued in January that the NDAA might just have a chilling effect on free expression. Forrest also agreed that it violated the Fifth Amendment right to due process and that the thing just didn't "pass Constitutional muster."

So says AP, Forrest erred on the side of freedom:

"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," the judge said.

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.

"That, however, is precisely what the First Amendment protects," Forrest wrote.

Hedges, the author, FYI, of the kick-ass volume War is a Force That Give Us Meaning, has interviewed members of 17 different terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Hedges testified in January, when he and several other people sued to overturn the law, that he has had to rethink his reporting for fear of running afoul of the NDAA. He dubbed the decision a victory for free speech and called it "momentous." it is, however, temporary. 

The New York Times also notes why the judge changed her mind:

Judge Forrest, whom Mr. Obama appointed last year, noted that Justice Department lawyers repeatedly declined to say that the plaintiffs' conduct would not make them subject to being detained. Her ruling was celebrated by civil liberties advocates as an unexpected victory for individual rights in an era in which courts have largely acquiesced to sweeping claims of national security powers by the government.

But it also drew a puzzled reaction from some legal specialists, who argued that the practical effect of the injunction was uncertain. They said it was not clear what it meant to enjoin the enforcement of a statute in which Congress offered its interpretation of another statute, the 2001 use-of-force authorization.

Judge Forrest also said her preliminary injunction was "pending further proceedings in this court or remedial action by Congress mooting the need for such further proceedings." The timing of her decision aligned closely with a renewed push in the House to impose explicit limits on the government's power to use indefinite detention in cases that arise on domestic soil.

Here is RT video of Hedges discussing his the lawsuit and why he fears the NDAA, from earlier this month.

Meanwhile, scrappy young Congressman and advocate for actually reading bills before he votes on them, Justin Amash, is preparing to speak on the House floor about his (and Democrat Adam Smith's) amendment to the NDAA. The amendment, which would explicitly say that the NDAA cannot apply to accused domestic terrorists, could potentially come up for a vote as early as Friday. Rep. Ron Paul is a fan, but the number of supporters are seemingly fairly small. The Huffington Post noted that "Smith was unwilling to say if he thought the measure would pass."

Remember, the NDAA may not be as bad as the tiny Alex Jones who lives in the head of every sensible, government-fearing individual screams. But it's bad, and it's vague, And its fans tend to not be fans of liberty. For example, Rep. Tom Rooney, the backer of H.R. 347, today accused Amash of wanting to "coddle" terrorists for his opposition to the NDAA. And National Review's Andrew C. McCarthy is very opposed to the "libertarian extremist"'s amendment, calling it a "Terrorist Bill of Rights."

And really, it would be terrific if government could at least decide on the question of whether they get to indefinitely detain you or not. The vagueness of it (which is tied to whatever the hell the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force actually allows) makes it harder to fight against and gives fodder to people like McCarthy who think to object to the NDAA is just fearmongering. 

Reason on the NDAA

NEXT: Prison Study: Equal Sexual Misconduct from Inmates, Staff

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I am the only English speaking Libertarian awake on the planet right now, except for the person who just posted this article. Oh, now I will read it…

    1. I’m going to go ahead and blame this comment on east coast bias.

      1. Ok, you racist, you do know that I am the only English speaking person currently living on the east coast, right?

    2. False!! Unless Indonesia is no longer on the planet.

    3. Confused…

      Are you saying there are no libertarians in Australia or that they do not speak English?

      1. It is Australia….

  2. Oh, and, FIRST!!!!!

  3. There is nothing more that statist tyrants love than vagueness. When you can interpret the law any way that you like depending on who you don’t like, is that not the very definition of tyranny?

    But the tyrannical ones do not rest, they never slumber in their pursuit of evil:

    Heil Der Shumuer!

    1. And so it begins. Next on Chucky’s wish list: The unfettered ability to confiscate accumulated wealth.

      1. There were a lot of sensible comments on that thread, though… quite surprising.

      2. Schumer’s proposal seems like it can be sort of used that way. Currently, you already have to pay an exit tax based on your current assets, despite having already paid taxes on them. His Ex-Patriot Act would double the normal capital gains tax of “future investment gains”

        Schumer’s proposal would empower the Internal Revenue Service to impose a 30 percent capital gains tax on future investment gains of wealthy individuals who the agency decides renounced their citizenship to avoid taxes. It also would bar such people from re-entering the U.S. Schumer said he will advance the legislation “as quickly as possible.”

        (oh, and it seems like Reason finally fixed the 50 char bug for punctuation/non-ascii chars)

    2. When you can interpret the law any way that you like depending on who you don’t like, is that not the very definition of tyranny?

      I’ve got some bad news for you…

  4. Having a REALLY hard time agreeing with that sleazy lefty Chomsky……
    But have to do it.

    1. Just that name… Chomsky, it sounds really pinko commie, no?

    2. Agreed.
      You got to get far out in the fever swamps of far-leftism to find a few with enough state-skepticism to oppose this shit.

  5. “And really, it would be terrific if government could at least decide on the question of whether they get to indefinitely detain you or not. The vagueness of it […] makes it harder to fight against […]”

    “‘Of course not,’ said the painter, ‘the second acquittal is followed by the third arrest, the third acquittal by the fourth arrest, and so on. That’s all part of the concept of the apparent acquittal.’ K. remained silent. ‘You clearly don’t see much advantage in apparent acquittal,’ said the painter, ‘perhaps protraction will suit you better. Should I explain the nature of protraction? K. nodded.”

    1. Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce!

    2. Nope. Almost.

  6. Dig this stupid shit:…..verything/


    1. My favorite comment:

      HOW DARE HE! Renouncing his citizenship over taxes? Abominable.
      Why no loyal citizen of this fair British Colony would ever do such a thing. We love high taxes, and we are founded on paying whatever taxes are asked of us.


      So? who else is supporting the Tories in the upcoming Parliamentary election?

    1. LOL ^This^

  7. For example, Rep. Tom Rooney, the backer of H.R. 347, today accused Amash of wanting to “coddle” terrorists for his opposition to the NDAA. And National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy is very opposed to the “libertarian extremist”‘s amendment, calling it a “Terrorist Bill of Rights.”

    All that’s missing is a “why do you hate the children?” and they’ll have their bases covered.

  8. It is worth noting that McCarthy’s readers do not support his view in this matter. He is rebuked for that article by people who are usually his fans. See comments;…..of-rights/

    1. I give better odds to them getting rid of the comment function than McCarthy acknowledging his critics.

  9. They said it was not clear what it meant to enjoin the enforcement of a statute in which Congress offered its interpretation of another statute


    1. (and by “indeed”, I mean to say, “what the fuck is that supposed to mean?!”)

  10. I’m proud to have Amash as my congress critter.

    1. I don’t remember where I first read about him, but I got on his mailing list and contributed. It very much seems like if we had 534 more like him, we’d be in much better shape.

      1. I’d settle for 267 more.

    2. It’s scary to find yourself quasi liking a congress critter.

    3. Luck bastard. I’m stuck with Camp, a typically obnoxious conservative republican.

      I saw somewhere that with the new district map Amash’s district is now more liberal-leaning, do we have to worry about him losing the seat this election?

  11. I guess you can now lump Mr. McCarthy in with Orrin Hatch. The “libertarian extremists” are coming to get them!

  12. I think they need to hit it on up a couple times dude.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.