Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 1 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend (1 Shares)  

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   1 comment
OpEdNews Op Eds

Court Puts Obama's Vague Indefinite Detention Power on Hold

By       Message WILLIAM FISHER     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Supported 2   Valuable 2   Must Read 1  
View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H3 9/20/12

Author 7
Become a Fan
  (11 fans)
- Advertisement -

By William Fisher

If President Obama now feels safer, knowing that there's a law that gives him the power to imprison someone until the end of the "war on terror," he must have little faith in such legal formalities as charges, indictments, trials, transparency and appeals.

- Advertisement -

That's because none of these niceties are required for you to be jailed under the NDAA -- the National Defense Authorization Act. President Obama signed the NDAA in mid-December, (after promising during his 2008 campaign that he would veto it).

According to the New York Times, you could be thrown into   "indefinite military detention on suspicion that they (you) "substantially supported" Al Qaeda or its allies -- at least if they had no connection to the Sept. 11 attacks."

This is not a new idea. The government has been imprisoning -- yes, let's use the actual word, not the euphemistic "detention," which sounds like a late homework assignment in grade school.

The United States has been detaining terrorism suspects indefinitely since 2001, basing its actions on Congress' Afghanistan "use of military force" law against

- Advertisement -

perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks and those who helped them. The NDAA created an actual law governing such imprisonments.

The judge, sitting in the powerful U. S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, said the language of the statute was too broad, too subject to misinterpretation because it covered not only active terrorists but "people who were part of or substantially supported Al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or its allies."

But there were no specific definitions of words like "associated forces." The law also failed to specify whether it extended to American citizens and others arrested on United States soil. The Judge felt such lapses could lead to confusion and wrongful convictions. And the government also failed to state unequivocally that no First Amendment-protected activities would subject them to indefinite military detention.

The lawsuit was brought by Chris Hedges and a group of other writers, including Daniel Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky. Hedges is a former N.Y. Times reporter whose reporting involves interactions with terrorists. The other plaintiffs were supporters of WikiLeaks.

The New York Times quoted them as saying, the law's "existence chilled their constitutional rights by creating a basis to fear that the government might seek to detain them under it by declaring that their activities made them supporters of an enemy group."

Judge Forrest also weighed in on another piece of legislation. Back in May, The House of Representatives approved (301-118) extension of the FISA Amendments Act until 2012, which would have codified the power of the president to issue FISA warrants without approval from the FISA Court. According to The Times, it also retroactively rejected the George W. Bush administration's unlawful snooping in broad violation of Americans' constitutionally protected privacy.

But the House bill was never considered by the Senate, so no new law was passed. Republicans say they intend to re-introduce the legislation after the election in November.

- Advertisement -

Judge Forrest also slammed provisions of the FISA law, which, in combination with the National Defense Authorization Act, could result in indefinite detention. According to Greenwald, she "emphasized how dangerous this new law is given the extremely broad discretion it vests in the president to order people detained in military custody with no charges."

But lest you think you've read the last page of the last chapter of this book, the Obama DOJ lost no time in filing not only an immediate appeal, but what Glenn Greenwald characterized as " an emergency motion asking the appeals court to lift the injunction pending the appeal."

"Obama lawyers wrote a breathless attack on the court's ruling, denouncing it as "vastly troubling' and claiming that it "threatens tangible and dangerous consequences in the conduct of an "active military conflict' and "threatens irreparable harm to national security'. "

Next Page  1  |  2


- Advertisement -

Supported 2   Valuable 2   Must Read 1  
View Ratings | Rate It
William Fisher has managed economic development programs in the Middle East and elsewhere for the US State Department and the US Agency for International Development. He served in the international affairs area in the Kennedy Administration and now (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting
/* The Petition Site */
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Liberties Lost Since 9/11

The Silence of the Sheep



Law Professors Outraged by Senate Vote on Indefinite Detention

Feel Safer Now?