Obama fights ban on indefinite detention of Americans
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.
Harold
Are You Scheduled For—Indefinite Detention?
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—Indefinitely 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—hostilities, combatants, belligerents, terrorism or threaten National Security.
NDAA 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 any 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; and confiscated the property of those they arrested.
It 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.