A federal appeals court judge granted the government a stay against a federal judge’s ruling permanently enjoining a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which passed last year and granted the military the legal authority to indefinitely detain persons. Lawyers from the Justice Department under Obama argued they needed an emergency stay because the injunction appears to be “worldwide in its effect, intruding upon military operations in the ongoing armed conflict against al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces.”

Scott Lemieux has a good piece in The American Prospect about the federal court ruling blocking the indefinite detention provisions of last year’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). While Lemieux expressed a lack of confidence that the injunction would be upheld by the appeals courts, he praised the action because of the potential for abuse.

I went on RT America to talk about the significance of the permanent injunction and the Obama Administration’s decision to appeal the permanent injunction. I highlighted the fact that Forrest agreed with the plaintiffs that, given how the government was presenting the NDAA provision in court, journalists reporting on terrorist groups might find themselves subject to the provision.

A federal judge issued a ruling on September 12 that permanently enjoined a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that was signed by President Barack Obama codifying indefinite military detention into United State law last year. She found that the writers, journalists and activists who were plaintiffs in the lawsuit had demonstrated actual and reasonably that their First Amendment-protected activities could subject them to indefinite military detention and ruled the public had a greater interest in preserving the First Amendment and due process rights than allowing law enforcement to have this tool.

Plaintiffs who won a preliminary injunction in May against a provision of the Homeland Battlefield Act or the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) are pushing for a permanent injunction to this provision of the NDAA. Citing recent statements made by the United States government that it made in a filed brief to a federal court, plaintiffs now have a heightened fear that that the provision—specifically known as Section 1021, which Judge Katherine B. Forrest temporarily enjoined—could potentially be used against them for engaging in First Amendment activities.

On this week’s Occupy Supply Skill Share, we discussed the NDAA and its implications on the future of dissent. At the beginning of the year, President Obama signed this year’s National Defense Authorization Act; immediately people focused on sections 1021 and 1022 concerning indefinite detention. Chris Hedges and a group of Journalists and Activists recently presented a suit against members of Congress and the Obama Administration regarding the constitutionality of the NDAA. We were joined by two of the plaintiffs on the case, Alexa O’Brien and Kai Wargalla.

The House passed a bill yesterday that would force the Office of Management and Budget to detail how they would deal with the sequestration cuts that would trigger on January 1 if Congress takes no further action. While it has the added benefit of forcing the President to detail specific cuts to the federal workforce, which could theoretically get used in an election campaign, the bill had strong bipartisan support, passing by a 414-2 margin. Similar legislation passed the Senate as part of their version of the farm bill. So this is likely to get done. In fact, Harry Reid said he would consider a floor vote for it.

Our presentation this week is a discussion on the NDAA and its implications for the future of dissent in the US. Since it was signed by President Obama in January, indefinite detention has been a contentious issue especially in the Occupy Movement.
This meeting is open to anyone – liaison, occupier, or otherwise – who wants to join this discussion and share there opinions on the NDAA.

Not every politician is great on every issue, granted. But with Carl Levin of late, there’s been quite a swing. On the one hand, his Permanent Subcommittee for Investigations delivered Goldman Sachs on a silver platter to the Justice Department (it’s currently sitting in a conference room, untouched). He has jumped on JPMorgan Chase’s massive trading loss to argue for a tightening of the Volcker rule he co-authored. On the other hand, he sees no need to change an indefinite detention law that has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court judge.

Dissenters’ Digest takes a look back at the week’s stories covering whistleblowers, watchdogs, and government accountability.