This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
In response to Judge Forrest's ruling, administration officials appealed. They said she exceeded enjoining NDAA's Section 1021.
They claimed doing so "threatens irreparable harm to national security and the public interest by injecting added burdens and dangerous confusion into the conduct of military operations abroad during an active armed conflict."
They granted a stay on her injunction. She questioned 2001 Authorization for use of Military Force (AUMF) interpretation. Its language and NDAA's Section 1021 aren't the same, she said.
"They are not co-extensive. Military detention based on allegations of 'substantially supporting' or 'directly supporting' the Taliban, Al Qaeda, or associated forces, is not encompassed within the AUFM and is enjoined by this order regarding" NDAA.
Obama officials argued she overstepped. She took "it upon (herself) to disagree with an interpretation of the military's detention authority that had previously been endorsed by all three branches of government," they claimed.
"What is more, (she) expressly invites actions for contempt sanctions if the military exercises detention authority in a manner inconsistent with the court's deeply flawed understanding of that authority."
In June, she issued a preliminary injunction against enforcing statute provisions she questions. While appealing her ruling, Obama officials didn't block it.
After making her injunction permanent, they asked for an emergency stay. They claimed she made an "unprecedented" ruling. They said it affects wartime matters.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
4
2
2
