Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 1 Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Tell A Friend Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites
General News

Supreme Court refuses to stop indefinite detention of Americans under NDAA

By       Message RT TV       (Page 1 of 2 pages)     Permalink    (# of views)   2 comments

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 6   News 5   Valuable 4  
View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H2 5/2/14

Author 56295
- Advertisement -

Original published here

The exterior of the U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington
(Image by (Reuters / Gary Cameron))
  Permission   Details   DMCA

The United States Supreme Court this week effectively ended all efforts to overturn a controversial 2012 law that grants the government the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without due process.
- Advertisement -

On Monday, the high court said it won't weigh in on a challenge filed by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges and a bevy of co-plaintiffs against US President Barack Obama, ending for now a two-and-a-half-year debate concerning part of an annual Pentagon spending bill that since 2012 has granted the White House the ability to indefinitely detain people "who are part of or substantially support Al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States."

The Obama administration has long maintained that the provision -- Section 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 -- merely reaffirmed verbiage contained within the Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF, signed by then-President George W. Bush in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Opponents, however, argued that the language in Section 1021 of the NDAA is overly vague and could be interpreted in a way that allows for the government to detain without trial any American citizen accused of committing a "belligerent act" against the country "until the end of hostilities."

- Advertisement -
When the provision was first challenged days after Pres. Obama signed it into law on December 31, 2011, Hedges -- who previously worked as a war correspondent for the New York Times and covered matters concerning Al-Qaeda for the paper -- said, "I have had dinner more times than I can count with people whom this country brands as terrorists ... but that does not make me one."

US District Judge Katherine Forrest agreed with Hedges and his co-plaintiffs, and months later wrote in a 112-page opinion that "First Amendment rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be legislated away."

"This Court rejects the government's suggestion that American citizens can be placed in military detention indefinitely, for acts they could not predict might subject them to detention," Judge Forrest wrote.

But the District Court's temporary, then permanent injunction against Sec. 1021 was challenged by the White House, and the Obama administration pleaded with the Justice Department to issue a stay. A federal appeals court ruled in favor of the president last July and said that the government can, in fact, indefinitely detail a person who has provided support to anyone deemed a threat to America.

On his part, Hedges said he feared that the administration's adamant attempts to keep the law intact could mean that the government has already relied on the NDAA to imprison American citizens without trial. Attorneys for the plaintiffs responded by saying they would take the case to the Supreme Court, but this week the nine-justice panel said they won't be hearing the case.

SCOTUS declined to make any comment regarding the case on Monday, but rather simply said that it would not be considered by the high court.

- Advertisement -

Last year, Hedges warned that the odds the court would take the case were slim, and said rejection on that level could lead to grave consequences with regards to freedoms in America.

"If we fail, if this law stands, if in the years ahead the military starts to randomly seize and disappear people, if dissidents and activists become subject to indefinite and secret detention in military gulags, we will at least be able to look back on this moment and know we fought back," he wrote.

On Monday this week, activist and co-plaintiff Tangerine Bolen wrote that the high court's decision to ignore the case means that "the fundamental right of due process and our fundamental rights of free speech and association ... no longer matter."

"We have tried to stand up to this madness: we are outnumbered, outspent and outgunned -- a David intrepidly fighting a Goliath that spans the planet and has the power to shape our 'reality' -- thus shaping what the courts even see. We have sacrificed greatly to do this -- and yet we would do it all again," she wrote.

Next Page  1  |  2


- Advertisement -

Must Read 6   News 5   Valuable 4  
View Ratings | Rate It is Russian television, which actually does a great job reporting on US news too.

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 Share Author on Social Media   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

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

Senators terrified with abuse of Patriot Act's secret laws

"US foreign policy is a marketing strategy for selling weapons" -- Jill Stein

Pope Francis shakes up Vatican Bank supervisory board

Google involved with Clinton campaign, controls information flow -- Assange

DOJ wants Bush, senior cabinet members exempt from Iraq War trial

"World moving away from American financial hegemony"