I've read several stories about this and they all contain descriptions like this.
The back-and-forth between Judge Forrest and Obama administration's lawyers that goes to the heart of the judge's ruling was stunning to behold. Forrest asked frepeatedly, in a variety of different ways, for the government attorneys to give her some, any assurance that the wording of section 1021 could not be used to arrest and detain people like the plaintiffs. Finally she asked for assurance that it could not be used to sweep up a hypothetical peaceful best-selling nonfiction writer who had written a hypothetical book criticizing US foreign policy, along lines theater the Taliban might agree with. Again and again the two lawyers said directly that they could not, or would not, give her those assurances.Here's where you can call me crazy. Does anyone else think that perhaps the administration lawyers weren't really interested in defending this bill?
We all know that President Obama signed NDAA reluctantly and wrote a signing statement afterwards. We also know that the bill passed Congress with veto-proof majorities, so he didn't have much choice. What better way to challenge the bill's constitutionality than to have the courts say so?
Of course the only one's who are writing about this are the same folks who are using it to claim their moral high ground while feeding their Obama Derangement Syndrome. So they're the last one's we can expect to consider this possibility.
I could be wrong about it. But I think there's more to this than meets the eye.