Obama fights ban on indefinite detention of Americans

RT ^ | 07 August, 2012 | Paul J. Richards

[LucianOfSamasota]

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.

[GlockThe Vote]

Outrageous.

FUBO!!!!!

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

I do not trust the government particularly much either. But my emphasis is always that there must be two points of view: one being how we treat hostile foreigners outside the reach of all but American military power, and a different one for how we treat American citizens in the United States.

America has very explicit rules for how it deals with hostile foreigners. The Geneva Conventions themselves have as their origin the US Civil War General Order 100. Yet even the Geneva Conventions are clear about non-uniformed irregular combatants and their treatment.

And if an American citizen leaves the US and throws their hand in with foreigners hostile to the US, they are committing treason in time of hostilities. They and their hosts are subject, by international law, to military force. And, I might add, to field trial and execution if captured.

And, as far as 16 year old Abdul-Rahman al-Awlaki is concerned, he appears to have been collateral damage in an attempt to kill Ibrahim al-Banna, an Egyptian believed to be a senior operative in al-Qaeda’s Yemen affiliate.

So all that does is serve as notice that if you are a harmless, 16-year-old boy, it is unwise to accompany your father to an anarchic part of Yemen in the middle of a civil war, and hang out with major combatant figures.

Because if you get killed, it’s like, bad luck.

[Ratman83]

Our government is as much the enemy as any terrorist or foreign country. If we give them an inch the will and have take many miles. A Citizen is a citizen wether he or not, we cannot allow killings of fellow citizens here or any where.