Quote:
Originally Posted by sperbonzo
Why would the administration need a judge to grant "An Emergency stay" on this ruling? Are they already holding US citizens without charges, trials, or access to lawyers????
|
I don't think it's that; I think the reason for the emergency stay request (and the reason it was granted) is that the injunction was written in a way that is overly broad.
With respect to the overbreadth argument, the key phrase from the injunction is: "[T]his Court permanently enjoins enforcement of § 1021(b)(2)
in any manner, as to any person." (Emphasis added)
That's a mighty, mighty broad scope, one that sure seems to cover anyone and everyone, American citizen or not, even non-combatant Taliban members who are actively providing material support to Taliban combatants in Afghanistan. This is significant from the administration and the military's perspective, because the NDAA (and the earlier AUMF it was written in order to codify) are the statutory authorities under which the military is detaining people in Afghanistan.
That's my best guess as to why the administration sought the emergency stay; not because of the hypothetical, potential 'bad applications' of the NDAA, but because the ways in which it is already actively (and openly) being used.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm no fan of the NDAA. I have a problem with detaining
anybody indefinitely without due process of law, American citizen or otherwise. IMO, such a practice is an offense to the ideals we're supposed to stand for as a country (ideals I think we should strive for, even if we fail). I think the NDAA should be permanently enjoined, then sent back to Congress to be overhauled and narrowed, or just plain scrapped.
I just also happen to think the administration's defense of the law in this case has less to do with the most extreme examples of how it
might be used, and more to do with how the ways in which we all know
for sure that it is already being used.
Whether or not we approve of those uses is another question, altogether, of course, and it is sort of ironic that the injunction is being opposed on the grounds of overbreadth, when that's one of the primary problems with the NDAA itself. ;-)