This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
Weeks earlier, senators approved it. On December 18, Senator Carl Levin said "language of the Senate bill was dropped." He stopped short of explaining more.
On December 19, lawmakers removed her amendment. Deceptive language replacing it said:
NDAA "shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or to deny any Constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution to any person inside the United States who would be entitled to the availability of such writ or to such rights in the absence of such laws."
Is means no one entitled to habeas "availability" shall be denied it. Anyone authorities arrest is assumed ineligible.
On September 12, Southern District of New York federal Judge Katherine B. Forrest blocked Obama's indefinite detention law.
She called it "facially unconstitutional: it impermissibly impinges on guaranteed First Amendment rights and lacks sufficient definitional structure and protections to meet the requirements of due process."She added that:
"If, following issuance of this permanent injunctive relief, the government detains individuals under theories of "substantially or directly supporting' associated forces, as set forth in' the National Defense Authorization Act, and a contempt action is brought before this court, the government will bear a heavy burden indeed."
Plaintiffs successfully argued that ambiguous language like "substantially supported," "associated forces," and "directly supported" leave them and others vulnerable to lawless indefinite detention.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
4
2
2
