Obama Administration Fights On To Retain Authority of 'Indefinite Detention' without Trial

[Karmadillo]

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/05/26
Published on Saturday, May 26, 2012 by Common Dreams
Obama Administration Fights On To Retain Authority of 'Indefinite Detention' without Trial
DOJ theatens appeal after judge issues injunction, calls provision 'unconstitutional'
- Common Dreams staff

Federal prosecutors from Obama's Dept. of Justice on Friday asked a judge to lift an injunction placed on specific section of a recent law that permits the 'indefinite military detention' by the United States government and was signed by the President in December.

Prosecutors on Friday double-down on behalf of the executive branch, saying that indefinite military detention without trial is justified in some cases involving militants and their supporters. (Photo: Tumblr) Earlier this month, Manhattan federal court Judge Katherine Forrest, sided with plaintiffs who filed suit as journalists and political activists against provisions in the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), arguing portions of the law were vaguely worded and an encroachment on their right to free speech, overstepping constitutional authority.

“The government was unwilling or unable to state that these plaintiffs would not be subject to indefinite detention under [Section] 1021,” Judge Forrest said in her earlier ruling. “Plaintiffs are therefore at risk of detention, of losing their liberty, potentially for many years.”

But the prosecutors on Friday double-down on behalf of the executive branch, saying that indefinite military detention without trial is justified in some cases involving militants or their supporters. But Forrest's previous argument, was that the government had not adequately addressed the concerns of the plaintiffs who said that they, too, because of their activities as political advocates or as journalists interacting with various 'potentially targeted' parties, could also be swept up. Also, arguing against "promises" of restraint by the Obama Justice Dept., the plaintiffs said there were no guarantees that future administrations wouldn't apply the statute more
broadly.

more...

[leveymg]

1. Gotta keep those Chicago Beer Makers off the streets: "promises of restraint by the Obama DOJ"

don't seem so promising when 3 American (idiots) have already been charged under the "terrorism" statute for filling 4 beer bottles with gasoline.

A terrorist is simply anyone they say is a "terrorist" on the day they say it.

[Bonobo]

2. Indeed. They are on the wrong side on this one for sure.

http://www.thenation.com/article/168040/military-detention-journalists

Military Detention for Journalists

The important question of whether the military may hold US citizens and foreign nationals in indefinite detention came to a head recently in two important forums: a federal court in Manhattan and the House of Representatives. On May 16, US District Judge Katherine Forrest ruled unconstitutional an important section of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012, finding that it threatened US citizens with military detention for First Amendment–protected speech and associations. Two days later, taking up the NDAA for 2013, the House rejected a rare bipartisan proposal to bar the military detention of people apprehended on US soil. At the same time, it approved language that appeared to mandate that all foreign nationals who can be tried in a military commission must be tried there rather than in civilian criminal court.

These developments underscore the remarkable fact that more than ten years after the September 11 terrorist attacks, the scope of the government’s power to use military authority to lock up human beings indefinitely remains fundamentally unclear. Indeed, it was that very ambiguity that led Judge Forrest to rule an important part of the NDAA unconstitutional. There is undoubtedly a legitimate place for military detention in the context of an armed conflict, so long as it conforms to the laws of war. But it is deeply disturbing that a decade into the conflict with Al Qaeda, there remain serious doubts about the extent of that awesome authority. Still more troubling is the apparent fact that the government is unwilling to erase those doubts.

The federal lawsuit challenged Section 1021 of the NDAA, which authorizes the indefinite military detention of people who are “part of or substantially supported Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces.” Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, and several other journalists and activists sued, claiming that the law was so overbroad and vague, they feared that their writings and associations might lead the government to lock them up in military detention.

At first glance, their fears may seem unfounded. In the decade since 9/11 the government has held only two US citizens in military detention in connection with the conflict with Al Qaeda, and both were alleged to have done much more than write an article or interview a terrorist. Yaser Hamdi was captured in 2001 on the battlefield in Afghanistan, carrying a weapon and accompanying a Taliban regiment. Jose Padilla, apprehended on arrival at O’Hare Airport in 2002, was said to be a member of Al Qaeda who had come here to commit a terrorist attack. Even Hedges’s and Chomsky’s harshest critics are unlikely to view them as being situated as Hamdi and Padilla are.

[leveymg]

3. The example missed is the 16 year old American son of al-Alwaki who CIA went out of its way to drone

Al-Alwaki was a propagandist, and likely a double-agent. The current policy isn't indefinite detention, it's indefinite death. Same goes for those who may know too much about the target's role in the complicated games being played.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. They need tools to pursue terra

And beer makers.

[leveymg]

5. We'll issue them one of these important anti-terrorism tools:

[msongs]

6. ex-constituional lawyer wants his UN-constitutional powers, just like Bushco nt

[Fire Walk With Me]

7. "Indefinite Detention is coming to town".