A repeating history of indefinite detention | Rights & Liberties. NDAA Indefinite Detention Provision Mysteriously Stripped From Bill. WASHINGTON -- Congress stripped a provision Tuesday from a defense bill that aimed to shield Americans from the possibility of being imprisoned indefinitely without trial by the military. The provision was replaced with a passage that appears to give citizens little protection from indefinite detention. The amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 was added by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), but there was no similar language in the version of the bill that passed the House, and it was dumped from the final bill released Tuesday after a conference committee from both chambers worked out a unified measure.
It declared that "An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention. " NDAA Indefinite Detention Opponents File Supreme Court Emergency Motion. Opponents of the post-9/11 use of indefinite military detention have filed an emergency motion with the U.S.
Supreme Court, seeking to block a law they say allows innocent American citizens to be locked away without trial. The motion, submitted on Wednesday, asks the Supreme Court to reinstate an injunction against a key portion of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. Unless the court does so, the motion argues, Americans are "in actual and imminent danger of losing their core First Amendment rights and fundamental Equal Protection liberties. " Since January, former New York Times reporter Chris Hedges, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and other activists have been waging a legal battle against the U.S. government, arguing that the NDAA gives the military far too much leeway to imprison journalists or activists on vague accusations of supporting terrorism.
Now the activists have taken their fight to block military detention to the Supreme Court. Also on HuffPost: Tweet Against NDAA. Remove the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012. Why I’m Suing Barack Obama - Chris Hedges' Columns. Attorneys Carl J. Mayer and Bruce I. Afran filed a complaint Friday in the Southern U.S. District Court in New York City on my behalf as a plaintiff against Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to challenge the legality of the Authorization for Use of Military Force as embedded in the latest version of the National Defense Authorization Act, signed by the president Dec. 31.
The act authorizes the military in Title X, Subtitle D, entitled “Counter-Terrorism,” for the first time in more than 200 years, to carry out domestic policing. With this bill, which will take effect March 3, the military can indefinitely detain without trial any U.S. citizen deemed to be a terrorist or an accessory to terrorism. I spent many years in countries where the military had the power to arrest and detain citizens without charge. The bill, however, does not define the terms “substantially supported,” “directly supported” or “associated forces.”
But it passed anyway. What makes our NDAA lawsuit a struggle to save the US constitution | Tangerine Bolen. I am one of the lead plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit against the National Defense Authorization Act, which gives the president the power to hold any US citizen anywhere for as long as he wants, without charge or trial. In a May hearing, Judge Katherine Forrest issued an injunction against it; this week, in a final hearing in New York City, US government lawyers asserted even more extreme powers – the right to disregard entirely the judge and the law.
On Monday 6 August, Obama's lawyers filed an appeal to the injunction – a profoundly important development that, as of this writing, has been scarcely reported. In the earlier March hearing, US government lawyers had confirmed that, yes, the NDAA does give the president the power to lock up people like journalist Chris Hedges and peaceful activists like myself and other plaintiffs. Government attorneys stated on record that even war correspondents could be locked up indefinitely under the NDAA. The degradation of justice. By now you will have read that self-described 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other alleged plotters will shortly have their day in court. Well, in a sort of a court, the kind where the rules have been made up on the fly (by Congress, no less!) And where convictions are all but guaranteed. It is a system that may one day be operating not just in the confines of Guantanamo prison, but here in the USA, so we should all be paying close attention.
Here’s the background. President Bush set up the original military commissions by executive order on November 21, 2001. They were immediately condemned by the legal community at home and abroad, including the Committee on Military and Justice of the Association of the Bar of New York City. Remember, this is only a few months after 9/11 and the New York City Bar is saying that the military commission system is an insult to both US law and international legal obligations. Then there was the issue of exactly how evidence was obtained. Bradley Manning, the NDAA and Wikileaks. Alexa O’Brien is a journalist, researcher, and social activist. She is currently investigating the Bradley Manning trial and the US government’s pursuit of Wikileaks. JAMES GREEN: Could you start off by telling me about the work you’re doing right now on the Bradley Manning case? ALEXA O`BRIEN: Sure.
I’ve been researching and covering the Bradley Manning trial and the US investigations into WikiLeaks, Assange, Manning, and supporters. Manning’s been in pre-trial confinement for over 900 days. I’ve been transcribing that trial by hand, and when the Military District of Washington (MDW) allows the press to actually use computers – which they haven`t lately – I type them. There is no public docket for the trial. And then there is more in-depth coverage and profiles I’ve built, including witness profiles and a reconstructed Appellate List available at GREEN: Just for people who are not familiar with the legal jargon, what is that? Congress To Amend NDAA To Give DoD & NSA Greater 'Cyberwar' Powers. Remember the NDAA? Yeah, for a variety of reasons that bill got a lot of attention last year -- mostly focused on the question of detainment of terrorists.
But there are some other nuggets in the bill, including one tidbit about "military activities in cyberspace. " The existing version of the NDAA does grant the Defense Department the ability to conduct such military activities, but only "upon direction by the President" and if the purpose is to "defend our Nation, Allies and interests," subject to existing laws. Here's the existing text: SEC. 954. . (1) the policy principles and legal regimes that the Department follows for kinetic capabilities, including the law of armed conflict; and (2) the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.). SEC. 954. ‘‘(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. Note a bunch of slightly sneaky things going on here.
Obama Signs NDAA Military Bill | Truthout. Iraq: Focus on Child Labour Reuters Tuesday 10 May 2005 Baghdad - Eleven-year-old Mahmoud al-Obaidi walks seven km every morning to get to work at a carpentry factory in Baghdad so he can save his bus fares. Al-Obaidi is the only male in his family of four, as his father disappeared five years ago and he works to support his family. On average he spends nearly 10 hours a day in the factory earning a living. "I didn't have a choice. Work was the only option. He boy is only one of thousands of Iraqi children forced by poverty to work at an early age. More than a million youngsters work often enduring hazardous conditions, as well as being vulnerable to sexual abuse and violence, according to a report released at the end of 2004. The project was a joint effort between the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and several Iraqi ministries, including the Ministry of Health (MoH), Ministry of Public Works and Social Affairs (MoPWSA) and the Ministry of Education (MoE).
Statistics Hazardous Work. Indefinite military detention for U.S. citizens now in the hands of a secretive conference committee. Indefinite military detention for U.S. citizens now in the hands of a secretive conference committee December 8, 2011 - by Donny Shaw If Congress does not pass a Department of Defense Authorization bill that Obama will sign by the end of the year, almost all of the U.S. military’s activities around the world would be jeopardized. At this point, the House and Senate have both passed their versions of the bill (H.R.1540 and S.1867), but they have disagreement on several provisions, including a provision opposed by the Obama Administration that would require the military to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects, including American citizens living in the U.S., without charge or trial.
With the House having voted 406-17 to “close” portions of the meetings and avoid public scrutiny, members from both chambers and both parties are meeting in a secretive conference committee to work on reconciling the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. National Defense Authorization Act: House And Senate Negotiators Agree On Bill Hoping To Avoid Obama Veto. WASHINGTON — Congress is pressing ahead with a massive $662 billion defense bill that requires military custody for terrorism suspects linked to al-Qaida, including those captured within the U.S., with lawmakers hoping their last-minute revisions will mollify President Barack Obama and eliminate a veto threat. Leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees announced late Monday that they had reached agreement on the policy-setting legislation that had gotten caught up in an escalating fight on whether to treat suspected terrorists as prisoners of war or criminals in the civilian justice system.
Responding to personal appeals from Obama and his national security team, the lawmakers added language on national security waivers and other changes that they hoped would ensure administration support for the overall bill. White House officials said Tuesday they were reviewing the bill. It was unclear whether they would hold firm on the veto threat. Also on HuffPost: Let's pick ONE Senator of voted for NDAA/SOPA and destroy him like we're doing for GoDaddy. Relentlessly investigate and find skeletons in his closet, money bomb is opponents, etc. : politics. The #NDAA indefinite detention provisions. US legislation targets anyone in the world it deems a threat – that could be you. The US Administration has the legislation (National Defense Authorization Act) in place to allow it to seek the extradition and indefinite detention of anyone in the world it perceives to be acting against US interests, or is reporting on or revealing information against US interests, or is regarded as an ‘enemy of the state’, or is a supporter of an ‘enemy of the state’.
It could be applied, for example, against Wikileaks supporters/organisers, or citizen or mainstream journalists, or political dissidents generally. Or you. And if you are not a US citizen you could be subject to extradition proceedings and held on an offshore facility – e.g. Guantanamo. Already the legislation is being used in the USA to criminalize anyone who gets in the way – for example: 1. The ‘Portland Three’ – Leah-Lynne Plante, Matt Duran and Katherine Olejnik were arrested after a raid by the FBI for simply being at a demonstration in Seattle. Matt and Katherine are still in prison. Quotes on the NDAA: National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2012 Indefinite Detention Permanent Injunction.