Success! Federal Judge Slams Down Part of NDAA

Good for the judge. There should be no situation in which the government acts without due process. Individual police and such must act in dangerous situations, of course, but the indefinite detention of anyone is not an emergency. Whoever wrote that law and whoever passed that law and Obama should be ashamed of that law.

I'm glad too, the NDAA and Patriot Act are/were bad for our freedoms.

The Bill HR 5122 aka The John Warner Defense Act of 2006, was originally passed by the Senate and signed into law by Pres. G.W. Bush Jr. on January 18th 2007. The law has been resigned into law in 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012 and is now in the Senate for consideration and vote with resigning into law by Pres. Obama in 2013

The main complaint with the law is in a single clause which gives the military the justification to hold indefinitely and tried when convienent, all captured foreign terrorist and any American citizen(s) who are declared to be domestic terrorist.

It is easy to understand how some people view the pending HR 5122 Bill (2013) as illegally encroaching upon and/or unConstitutionally suspending the specific rights of American citizens which are guaranteed under/by the U.S. Constitution {i.e.} The right to a speedy trial by a jury of one's peers. (Habeas Corpus cirica 1879)

However, when taken in the context and purpose by which it was originally written, one must also see that until the United States and it's citizens are free of all threats of terrorism, we the people, must be prepared to loose some of the privilages we previously held dear to us before the terrorist attack of Sept. 11th 2001 in order to remain relatively safe from another such attack occurring. There are no absolute guarantees in life, therefore we must do everything we can to protect ourselves from those who seek to destry us and our way of life.

It's a complicated matter of weighing personal rights against personal safety for the American people.

Scat stinks no matter how you cook it.

A bad law under President Bush does not become a good one under President Obama.

Scott, I understand where you're coming from. However, personally, my concern is that although it is meant to be used in a military situation, it is far too over-reaching and could easily be interpreted and applied against civilians.
I see a strong parallel to the TSA. Yes, they were put there to keep us safe and most people can handle some intrusion for the price of safety, but look at them now. They are going way overboard and ignoring the reality of terrorism for the sake of being 'PC'. We have a profile, it may suck, but it's reality. Taking the diaper off of an infant, or a grandmother...unnecessary, expensive and intrusive.

Many opponents of the HR 5122 Bill cite TSA incidents reported in the news when arguing their point of view on the issue. True, there has been dozens of ridiculous incidents committed by TSA employees oconcerning wrong headed mistakes or overstepping their authority. However, just as you used in your debative comment, people mainly repeat that which was noted in the news not what they actually incurred themselves. Further, such incidents being reported in the news media only goes to show that there are checks and balances which are in place to protect us not only from those who would do us harm, but also from overzealous TSA agents.

With that said, until 2009 when I retired for the second time, I traveled by air an average of once a month for 12 years (7 of which were under scrutiny at airports) and I never at anytime, ever heard even one person complain about all the extra precautions and security measures being used in airports, with the exception of once by your's truly.

{i.e.} In 2003 I was in Ft. Smith Arkansas on business. When leaving for home through the city's airport which was so small, that the only airplane on the terminal tarmac, in fact at the whole airport, was a twin engine turbo prop puddle jumper, which I was scheduled to board for Atlanta. where I would change to another plane bound for home. There was a total of 5 people taking the outbound fight, including me. The airport had 2 TSA agents and the goody counter attendant, for a total of 8 people in the whole airport's single terminal building. Twice before boarding the plane, I was singled out and taken into a tiny private room where my bags, my shoes and my person was searched and scanned with a hand held metal detector, needless to say, at my protest the second time around. Upon the five of us linning up to walk out on the tarmac to board the plane, I was once again ordered to step out of the line and to remove my shoes, one agent searched the shoes, while the other agent kept me guarded as if I was some sort of desperate criminal or a terrorist with a flashing neon sign on my forehead. Unbelievable treatment, you betcha, overstepping authority, hell yes. The whole affair was embarrassing and ridiculous and made me mad as hell. I did the only thing which I could do, I filed a complaint with the TSA office upon my arrival in Atlanta while awaiting for my connecting flight home. What became of that complaint, probably nothing, since I have never heard anything from anyone. But, it made me feel better for doing so.

With that one nightmare recounted for the reading membership's benefit, I must also state, that with all the flights I took out of the many airports in both the United States and Canada, I have always felt safer in flying all over North America because of those TSA security requirement and still do to this date.

I have found that it is those who dislike any government control who complain the most and the loudest, not those who actually use airports/airplanes as a means of transportation. {i.e.} The people who are the ones most in danger from those who are seeking to hurt Americans. Air travelers are graciously understanding of the extra security measures instituted for everyone benefit, protection and safe travel.

There are always two sides to all stories as well as two sides in a debate. Unfortunately, many people get into a debate only because of their personal feelings or political ideology, not as being a person who has lived the issue or has something of substance to contribute on the subject of debate.

Thank you for writing an interesting article.

This is really good news. Sometimes people are heroes just for doing their job. Hooray for Judge Forrest.

There's no reason on Earth for appeal.

There's no defending the NDAA on any level. At best it hearkens back to the paranoia witness at the outbreak of WW2 that saw millions of US citizens of Japanese decent taken away to what basically amounted to concentration camps. There, they were deprived of their rights and the sum was indefinite.

That both parties, and presidents connected to them, have endorsed this brand of raping of the constitution only furthers the fears of many that our nation is being governed NOT by the people and those we elect to serve US, but by some obscure power base that is working to decommission that constitution.

Again, there is no way to defend the NDAA and so you will find that neither Obama nor Romney will take this subject head-on.

This was a good decision. I hope it stands.

Strangely I find myself in agreement with Rory on this. I also hope Judge Forrests ruling stands.