U.S. judge's rule protects reporters, activists in their Middle East work

NEW YORK Wed Sep 12, 2012 6:25pm EDT

Related Topics

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal judge made permanent on Wednesday her order blocking enforcement of a U.S. law's provision that authorizes military detention for people deemed to have "substantially supported" al Qaeda, the Taliban or "associated forces."

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan had ruled in May in favor of non-profit groups and reporters whose work relates to conflicts in the Middle East and who said they feared being detained under a section of the law, signed by President Barack Obama in December.

Wednesday's 112-page opinion turns the temporary injunction of May into a permanent injunction. The United States appealed on August 6.

The permanent injunction prevents the U.S. government from enforcing a portion of Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act's "Homeland Battlefield" provisions.

The opinion stems from a January lawsuit filed by former New York Times war correspondent and Pulitzer Prize winner Chris Hedges and others. The plaintiffs said they had no assurance that their writing and advocacy activities would not fall under the scope of the provision.

Government attorneys argued that the executive branch is entitled to latitude when it comes to cases of national security and that the law is neither too broad nor overly vague.

"This court does not disagree with the principle that the president has primacy in foreign affairs," the judge said, but that she was not convinced by government arguments.

"The government has not stated that such conduct - which, by analogy, covers any writing, journalistic and associational activities that involve al Qaeda, the Taliban or whomever is deemed "associated forces" - does not fall within ยง 1021(b)(2)."

A spokeswoman for the Manhattan U.S. Attorney's office, which represents the government in this case, declined to comment on the ruling.

The case is Hedges et al v. Obama et al, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 12-cv-331.

(Reporting By Basil Katz, editing by Philip Barbara)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (2)
It is nice to know that the military can’t detain journalists, for know, under the authority of the NDAA. It stills seems to be a concern that a US citizen can be reported by another US citizen who “saw something and said something,” and wind up under indefinite detention or worse by the US military. Posse comitatus explicitly states that use of the Army on US soil can only be done through a congressional act, not presidential approval through the authorization of an executive order. Then again, the US is supposed to seek congressional approval and make a declaration of war before wiping sections of the globe off the map. When’s the last time a president remembered to take care of that “little” detail?

Sep 13, 2012 8:24am EDT  --  Report as abuse
justinolcb wrote:
awww Obama made a bad law – should that surprise anyone?? hahaha all of his laws are unconstitutional and should be repealed

Sep 13, 2012 2:30pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.

Full focus