The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is passed annually to appropriate funding to the military. The current instance includes provisions that allow the President to indefinitely imprison U.S. citizens and non-citizens alike, without trial, based only on the Presidents unsupported assertion that a person is affiliated with al Qaeda or associated forces. The language of the “indefinite detention” provisions of the NDAA was carefully crafted to be misleading. This makes it easy for politicians to lie about the scope of this authority while using statements which are, technically, true. Despite outcry from civil liberties groups, the indecorous provisions have been repeatedly passed with broad bipartisan support and signed into law by Obama. Here are some of the deceptions which are now being used on constituents by those who support the bill (During the debates, nobody denied claims that the provisions allowed indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial, so these deceptions are intentional). Deception #1: The NDAA gives no NEW detainment authority- This is technically an accurate statement. The NDAA does not grant new authority; it merely codifies authority that the President already claims (based on Bush-era legal precedents), making the legislature complicit in the Executive and Judicial Branch’s unconstitutional usurpation. Deception #2: U.S. citizens are exempt from the REQUIREMENT of military detention. This is also a, technically, true statement. U.S. citizens and legal resident aliens are not, however, exempt from the OPTION of military detention, which can be initiated at the sole discretion of the President. Under this law, the President can decide whether a citizen will be held under military or civilian law. As for covered non-citizens, section 1022 REQUIRES that they be held under military law. Deception #3: An amendment ensures habeas corpus protections under an Article 3 court. This guarantee is meaningless. Those detained under section 1021 of the NDAA will never see the inside of an Article 3 court if they are held under military law. Even if we assume that habeas corpus will be granted, however, this does little to protect anyone from wrongful imprisonment. A habeas hearing does not necessarily examine the sufficiency of evidence to hold someone; it merely evaluates whether the government has legal standing and jurisdiction to do so under the specific circumstances (which it could plausibly claim through past federal judicial precedent and section 1021 of the NDAA). In other words, even with a habeas hearing, the President could still hold people indefinitely based on nothing but his own word. A Grand Jury would be the only means to assess the sufficiency of evidence and the amendment does not guarantee the right to a Grand Jury hearing.
Posted on: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 23:18:50 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015