Obama fights ban on indefinite detention of Americans

Get short URL

Published time: August 07, 2012 15:59
Edited time: August 09, 2012 00:17

Trends

Defense Authorization Act

Tags

Court, Law, Obama, USA

The White House has filed an appeal in hopes of reversing a federal judge’s ruling that bans the indefinite military detention of Americans because attorneys for the president say they are justified to imprison alleged terrorists without charge.

Manhattan federal court Judge Katherine Forrest ruled in May that the indefinite detention provisions signed into law late last year by US President Barack Obama failed to “pass constitutional muster” and ordered a temporary injunction to keep the military from locking up any person, American or other, over allegations of terrorist ties. On Monday, however, federal prosecutors representing President Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta filed a claim with the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in hopes of eliminating that ban.

The plaintiffs "cannot point to a single example of the military's detaining anyone for engaging in conduct even remotely similar to the type of expressive activities they allege could lead to detention," Obama’s attorneys insist. With that, the White House is arguing that as long as the indefinite detention law hasn’t be enforced yet, there is no reason for a judge to invalidate it.

Reuters reports this week that the government believes they are justified to have the authorization to lock alleged belligerents up indefinitely because cases involving militants directly aligned against the good of the US government warrants such punishment. Separate from Judge Forrest’s injunction, nine states have attempted to, at least in part, remove themselves from the indefinite detention provisions of included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, or NDAA.

In section 1021 of the NDAA, the president’s authority to hold a terrorism suspect “without trial, until the end of the hostilities” is reaffirmed by Congress. Despite an accompanying signing statement voicing his opposition to that provision, President Obama quietly inked his name to the NDAA on December 31, 2011. In May, however, a group of plaintiffs including notable journalists and civil liberty proponents challenged section 1021 in court, leading to Judge Forrest to find it unconstitutional one month later.

"There is a strong public interest in protecting rights guaranteed by the First Amendment," Forrest wrote in her 68-page ruling. "There is also a strong public interest in ensuring that due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment are protected by ensuring that ordinary citizens are able to understand the scope of conduct that could subject them to indefinite military detention."

At the time Judge Forrest made her injunction, attorney Carl Mayer told RT on behalf of the plaintiffs that, although he expected the White House to appeal, “It may not be in their best interest.”

“[T]here are so many people from all sides of the political spectrum opposed to this law that they ought to just say, 'We're not going to appeal,’” Mayer said. "The NDAA cannot be used to pick up Americans in a proverbial black van or in any other way that the administration might decide to try to get people into the military justice system. It means that the government is foreclosed now from engaging in this type of action against the civil liberties of Americans."

The original plaintiffs, who include Pulitzer Prize-winner Chris Hedges, have asked Judge Forrest to make her injunction permanent. Oral arguments in the case are expected to begin this week.

Comments (60)

ranchoazulmt (unregistered) 18.09.2012 15:24

The military is not allowed to perform any police/arrest work due to the Posse-Comitatus act of 1878. Did I miss something in this bill that rescinded this act? I think that with his serious overreach of power, he should have the House defund all of his little pet projects and then impeach him. Who is going to pay for fast and furious? Holder merely promoted the idiots in this case.

Undo

r.dahlin (unregistered) 12.08.2012 20:00

StG44 has eluded to the big lie. The puppet politicians, both sides, put up by the Shadow Ruling Elite are all puppets who answer and do the bidding of this cabal and the people be damned.

The entire power structure is installed with criminals to advance the total domination of the people. This agenda has been going on for a long time.

The plan is to divide the people and have them chasing their respective tails to divert attention from the real causes against the people's interest.

The answer lies in we the people to all come together to hold these criminal civil servants accountable. As we stop them, outside the usual power centers, we begin to liberate and restore the rule of law as mandated by the Fed. Constitution.

The dire alternative is of course total enslavement which we are well on our way to that known end.

What is your prefrence?

Undo

Rwolf (unregistered) 11.08.2012 16:21

Re: “Reuters reports this week that the government believes they are justified to have the authorization to lock alleged belligerents up indefinitely because cases involving militants directly aligned against the good of the US government warrants such punishment.” Current NDAA provisions could be used by U.S. Government to round up anyone it arbitrarily deems a belligerent or threat to National Security. The Obama Government wants the power to incarcerate in indefinite detention any American it alleges a “Belligerent” without probable cause, charges, no right to an attorney or habeas corpus. Some observers believe NDAA included the vague term “Belligerent ” so U.S. Government would have authority granted by Congress to—Indef initely Detain large numbers of Americans not involved in terrorism e.g. Americans that participate in 1st Amendment activities (on the premise) certain 1st Amendment Activities appeared intended or were used to support or provoke—hostilitie s, combatants, belligerents, terrorism or threaten National Security. N DAA 2012 has opened the door for corrupt U.S. police; government agents and provocateurs which there are many, to file false reports and statements to target any American for arrest or disappearance. It is apparent some Members in Congress don’t represent the Constitution; otherwise they would not have voted down introduced amendments to the 2013 Defense Authorization Act of 2012 that would have protected Americans’ right to due process of law under NDAA. Sections of NDAA 2012 are so broadly written U.S. Government or the President may be able to (retroactively) deem an American or group’s prior 1st Amendment behavior as supporting hostilities, terrorism or (Belligerent) to order Indefinite Detention. Historical Note: the Nazi Government used similar laws to NDAA to arrest, indefinitely detain, disappear and execute without probable cause—their political opposition. The Nazi Government concurrently confis cated the property of those they arrested. I t should be expected that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings when interrogated, not allowed legal counsel or habeas corpus may be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions ) while held in Indefinite Detention.

Undo

View all comments (60)