SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Judge: Obama Administration Can Indefinitely Detain Anyone
Stay issued on Tuesday afternoon deals blow to civil liberties
Oct 02, 2012
On Tuesday afternoon an appeals court stopped an order blocking indefinite detention, siding with the Obama adminstration's right to indefinitely detain terror suspects.
Politico reports on the ruling from Appeals Court Judges Denny Chin, Raymond Lohier and Christopher Droney:
First, in its memorandum of law in support of its motion, the government clarifies unequivocally that, 'based on their stated activities,' plaintiffs, 'journalists and activists[,] . . . are in no danger whatsoever of ever being captured and detained by the U.S. military.'
Second, on its face, the statute does not affect the existing rights of United States citizens or other individuals arrested in the United States. See NDAA SS 1021(e) ('Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.').
Third, the language of the district court's injunction appears to go beyond NDAA SS 1021 itself and to limit the government's authority under the Authorization for Use of Military Force...
Last month U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest declared the law unconstitutional, giving what Chris Hedges, one of the plaintiffs in the suit, described as "an unqualified victory for the public."
But the victory was short lived. The Hill notes that "the Obama administration responded with an emergency motion to stay the injunction, arguing that the court ruling 'threatens tangible and dangerous consequences in the conduct of an active military conflict.'"
The ruling today extends that temporary stay.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
On Tuesday afternoon an appeals court stopped an order blocking indefinite detention, siding with the Obama adminstration's right to indefinitely detain terror suspects.
Politico reports on the ruling from Appeals Court Judges Denny Chin, Raymond Lohier and Christopher Droney:
First, in its memorandum of law in support of its motion, the government clarifies unequivocally that, 'based on their stated activities,' plaintiffs, 'journalists and activists[,] . . . are in no danger whatsoever of ever being captured and detained by the U.S. military.'
Second, on its face, the statute does not affect the existing rights of United States citizens or other individuals arrested in the United States. See NDAA SS 1021(e) ('Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.').
Third, the language of the district court's injunction appears to go beyond NDAA SS 1021 itself and to limit the government's authority under the Authorization for Use of Military Force...
Last month U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest declared the law unconstitutional, giving what Chris Hedges, one of the plaintiffs in the suit, described as "an unqualified victory for the public."
But the victory was short lived. The Hill notes that "the Obama administration responded with an emergency motion to stay the injunction, arguing that the court ruling 'threatens tangible and dangerous consequences in the conduct of an active military conflict.'"
The ruling today extends that temporary stay.
On Tuesday afternoon an appeals court stopped an order blocking indefinite detention, siding with the Obama adminstration's right to indefinitely detain terror suspects.
Politico reports on the ruling from Appeals Court Judges Denny Chin, Raymond Lohier and Christopher Droney:
First, in its memorandum of law in support of its motion, the government clarifies unequivocally that, 'based on their stated activities,' plaintiffs, 'journalists and activists[,] . . . are in no danger whatsoever of ever being captured and detained by the U.S. military.'
Second, on its face, the statute does not affect the existing rights of United States citizens or other individuals arrested in the United States. See NDAA SS 1021(e) ('Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.').
Third, the language of the district court's injunction appears to go beyond NDAA SS 1021 itself and to limit the government's authority under the Authorization for Use of Military Force...
Last month U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest declared the law unconstitutional, giving what Chris Hedges, one of the plaintiffs in the suit, described as "an unqualified victory for the public."
But the victory was short lived. The Hill notes that "the Obama administration responded with an emergency motion to stay the injunction, arguing that the court ruling 'threatens tangible and dangerous consequences in the conduct of an active military conflict.'"
The ruling today extends that temporary stay.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.