P. 1
Hedges, et al. v Obama, et al - (SDNY) NDAA Opinion and Order - Document 36

Hedges, et al. v Obama, et al - (SDNY) NDAA Opinion and Order - Document 36

|Views: 111|Likes:
Published by Jack Ryan
CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction is GRANTED; enforcement of § 1021 of the NDAA is preliminarily enjoined pending further order of this Court or amendments to the statute rendering this Opinion & Order moot.
CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction is GRANTED; enforcement of § 1021 of the NDAA is preliminarily enjoined pending further order of this Court or amendments to the statute rendering this Opinion & Order moot.

More info:

Published by: Jack Ryan on May 18, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/18/2012

pdf

text

original

statute” in that it does not provide for a maximum or minimum

Case 1:12-cv-00331-KBF Document 36 Filed 05/16/12 Page 42 of 68

43

period of imprisonment. However, there can be no doubt that the

possibility of indefinite military detention, involving similar

deprivation of personal liberty as criminal incarceration, is

analogous to a criminal statute. Indeed, as the court noted in

Hamlily v. Obama, 616 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.D.C. 2009), when reviewing

the breadth of the term “substantially support” with respect to

detention authority under the AUMF, “a detention authority that

sweeps so broadly is simply beyond what the law of war will

support. The Government’s approach in this respect evidences an

importation of principles from the criminal law context.” Id. at

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->