http://news.yahoo.com/federal-judge-terror-law-violates-1st-amendment-233222966.html

Federal judge: Terror law violates 1st Amendment
By LARRY NEUMEISTER | Associated Press – 1 hr 39 mins

NEW YORK (AP) — A judge on Wednesday struck down a portion of a law giving the government wide powers to regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists, saying it left journalists, scholars and political activists facing the prospect of indefinite detention for exercising First Amendment rights.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan said in a written ruling that a single page of the law has a "chilling impact on First Amendment rights." She cited testimony by journalists that they feared their association with certain individuals overseas could result in their arrest because a provision of the law subjects to indefinite detention anyone who "substantially" or "directly" provides "support" to forces such as al-Qaida or the Taliban. She said the wording was too vague and encouraged Congress to change it.

"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.

She called the fears of journalists in particular real and reasonable, citing testimony at a March hearing by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Christopher Hedges, who has interviewed al-Qaida members, conversed with members of the Taliban during speaking engagements overseas and reported on 17 groups named on a list prepared by the State Department of known terrorist organizations. He testified that the law has led him to consider altering speeches where members of al-Qaida or the Taliban might be present.

Hedges called Forrest's ruling "a tremendous step forward for the restoration of due process and the rule of law."

He said: "Ever since the law has come out, and because the law is so amorphous, the problem is you're not sure what you can say, what you can do and what context you can have."

Hedges was among seven individuals and one organization that challenged the law with a January lawsuit. The National Defense Authorization Act was signed into law in December, allowing for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism. Wednesday's ruling does not affect another part of the law that enables the United States to indefinitely detain members of terrorist organizations, and the judge said the government has other legal authority it can use to detain those who support terrorists.

A message left Wednesday with a spokeswoman for government lawyers was not immediately returned.

Bruce Afran, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, called the ruling a "great victory for free speech."

"She's held that the government cannot subject people to indefinite imprisonment for engaging in speech, journalism or advocacy, regardless of how unpopular those ideas might be to some people," he said.

Attorney Carl Mayer, speaking for plaintiffs at oral arguments earlier this year, had noted that even President Barack Obama expressed reservations about certain aspects of the bill when he signed it into law.

After the ruling, Mayer called on the Obama administration to drop its decision to enforce the law. He also called on Congress to change it "to make it the law of the land that U.S. citizens are entitled to trial by jury. They are not subject to military detention, policing and tribunals, all the things we fought a revolution to make sure would never happen in this land."

The government had argued that the law did not change the practices of the United States since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and that the plaintiffs did not have legal standing to sue.

In March, the judge seemed sympathetic to the government's arguments until she asked a government attorney if he could assure the plaintiffs that they would not face detention under the law for their work.

She wrote Wednesday that the failure of the government to make such a representation required her to assume that government takes the position that the law covers "a wide swath of expressive and associational conduct."
********************************

Now when the SCOTUS shoots down Obozocare King Barry will be batting 1000 won't he?

What a legacy! The 1st black POTUS.... AND WHAT A MESSAGE HE HAS PUT FOREWARD!

It's no wonder many black Americans are turning against him.....He is giving them a bad representation by his amature, self glorifying actions, trying to play god!

It is exactly this kind of abuse of power that reiterates the concept of limited government.

How many bailouts and unconstitutional laws are the idiot masses going to sit back and watch take place?

Having to rely on the courts to uphold individual liberty and the bill of rights is making a pact with the devil..

There is absolutely nothing good that will come of expanding executive powers.

A victory yes, but also a potential for posturing. "President Barack Obama expressed reservations about certain aspects of the bill when he signed it into law."




like a little kid seeing what he can get away with...

Darn, I assumed from the title that people would be commenting on the actual judicial opinion and not just trying to roast Obama yet again.

To me this opinion (the judicial one, I mean) was right on. Especially the part about freedom of speech applying PARTICULARLY to unpopular and extreme speech.

I agree. I think there is a wide array of disagreements which should be aired, and it is the theme of liberty to allow people to talk about what they are against without having to fear for there lives and livelihood.

Lets use the example from the article. Just imagine for a moment that not all of the people in the world fighting against the US are wild eyed terrorists, but have something to say. The incrimination by association makes it such that any journalist who wants to hear there side is in jeopardy of being seen as supporting the enemy and silenced by our government.

The fact is if you allow people to disagree openly today they are less likely to attack you from the shadows tomorrow, but if you remove the legal and peaceful avenues of disagreement, you get rebellion.

Our government seems hell bent on transforming into a totalitarian big brother entity, and civil rights activists, and those who wish to protect our constitutional rights need to keep stepping up and laying down the smack to these idiotic ideas that centralize authority and outlaw dissent.

your "obama" is the one that signed it in the first place... how could it not be about him?

I'm not getting why this bill is put on just Obamas shoulders,why are people forgetting that our great congress has alot to do with it more than Obama does.Even if he vetoed it Congress Override can still get it into law and it's congress that wants this.
I'm not saying Obama is the greatest we've had as president but look outside the box and blame congress also for these NDAA "concentration camp" policies

Congress, the president, and all of them are trying to give themselves more power.

They do not represent the people anymore. They do not represent freedom anymore. Something very sinister has infiltrated our government. I love my country but I fear my government.

Its time to say no to this bull crap!

Maybe because it is Obama's Justice Department that has been arguing this case in favor of the indefinite detention provision.

Does it really make sense for someone that says he won't use it to have lawyers arguing for it?

Motives should be questioned..

when bush was in office, people screamed and cried about this when he did it... on terrorists... now, obama and company want to take it further and use it on american people and protesters.. where is all the screamers now?

i couldn't agree with you more on this...

Their out protesting, their out occupying, their involved in the recall process of all the senators who signed this..
screaming didn't do any good so were doing other things this time.

yea, your right... maybe the scared senators and obama is the reason they pushed this illegal crap through in the first place...

Obama could have veto'd it . . .

When the "law" goes against the people, then the people need to become outlaws. These are laws made by a corrupt criminal organization. --Your government.---

Since when do we the people have to obey the laws of criminals?

Revolution time.