Update on Challenge to NDAA Detention Law: Attorney Carl Mayer Details ObamaCo’s Legal Wrangling and Explains Judge’s Ruling

by Peter B. Collins on September 20, 2012

Preview Clip

No subscription needed–this podcast is free to all.  Carl Mayer returns to update desperate, disingenuous legal maneuvers from “Justice” Department.  Bottom line: unconstitutional detention rules are back in effect.  Mayer and his co-counsel Bruce Afran represent Chris Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg and other plaintiffs, who won a permanent injunction against the broad, vague detention policies in section 1021 b 2 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).  In this in-depth interview, Mayer first updates us on the scramble by government lawyers to reinstate the law, leading to a short-term “stay” of the ruling by Judge Katherine Forrest by an appeals court judge, following Forrest’s refusal.

Mayer offers commentary on key portions of Judge Forrest’s ruling of September 12, which is blunt and unusual in many respects.  You can download the ruling on follow the page references as we go through it.

The judge rejects forcefully many of the government’s claims, especially that the president already has the same detention authority of 1021 under the AUMF (Authorization of Use of Military Force) passed in September, 2001.  In attempting to prevail on 1021, the government blundered in its claim, prompting the judge to limit the scope of the AUMF and nullify 1021.  So now, the White House has criticized the judge, saying that her ruling adversely affects the detention of 50 Pakistanis in Afghanistan–when it is clear that Mayer sued only over the rights of Americans and others in the US.

We talk about the judge’s sharp rebukes of the DOJ lawyers on a number of issues, including their refusal to define critical terms in the law, and to exclude the plaintiffs from application of it.

There’s much more, including many quotes from the clear and blunt court ruling.

Mayer’s team is fighting this case pro bono.  You can contribute to help with legal expenses here or here.

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: