Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 6 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H3'ed 9/20/12

Court Puts Obama's Vague Indefinite Detention Power on Hold

By       (Page 1 of 3 pages)     (# of views)   1 comment
Author 7
Message WILLIAM FISHER
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."

- Advertisement -

 

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

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

 

- Advertisement -

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.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

 

- Advertisement -

Supported 2   Valuable 2   Must Read 1  
Rate It | View Ratings

WILLIAM FISHER Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

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...)
 
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein 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
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

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

BUSH AT YEAR-END

Liberties Lost Since 9/11

The Silence of the Sheep

BAHRAIN: UNION LEADERS ON HUNGER STRIKE

Law Professors Outraged by Senate Vote on Indefinite Detention

Feel Safer Now?