Federal judge blocks portion of anti-terrorism law
Jaclyn Belczyk at 11:19 AM ET
[T]he statute at issue places the public at undue risk of having their speech chilled for the purported protection from al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and "associated forces"—i.e., "foreign terrorist organizations." The vagueness of § 1021 does not allow the average citizen, or even the Government itself, to understand with the type of definiteness to which our citizens are entitled, or what conduct comes within its scope.Forrest issued a preliminary injunction against the section's enforcement. A lawyer for the plaintiffs has urged the Obama administration to abandon its decision to enforce the law [AP report].Obama signed the NDAA into law [JURIST report] on December 31, 2011. Upon signing, he noted[statement], "I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation." Both houses of Congress reached an agreement [JURIST report] on the language of the NDAA's most controversial sections in mid-December.