April 29, 2014 by History in a Hurry
Remember the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, back in the good old days? Hope and change! Hope … you don’t get indefinitely detained!
Supreme Court Won’t Hear Chris Hedges’ Indefinite Detention Case
by Alexander Reed Kelly
Posted April 28, 2014
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Truthdig columnist Chris Hedges and other plaintiffs the right to challenge a law that allows the U.S. military to indefinitely detain people alleged or suspected to have helped al-Qaida or the Taliban.
A milestone in the so-called war on terror, the decision leaves the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) intact. The provision was ruled unconstitutional in 2012 by a federal court in New York after Hedges v. Obama was filed in January of that year, but that decision was overturned by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the summer of 2013.
U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear NDAA Legal Challenge, Allowing President and Military to Arrest and Detain Americans Indefinitely Without Due Process
April 29, 2014
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In refusing to hear a legal challenge to the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), the United States Supreme Court has affirmed that the President and the U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals, including American citizens. By denying without comment a petition for review in Hedges v. Obama, the high court not only passed up an opportunity to overturn its 1944 Korematsu v. United States ruling allowing for the internment of Japanese-Americans in concentration camps, but also let stand a lower court ruling empowering the President to use “all necessary and appropriate force” to indefinitely detain persons associated with or “suspected” of aiding terrorist organizations. In weighing in on the case before the lower court, attorneys for The Rutherford Institute challenged the Obama administration’s claim that the NDAA does not apply to American citizens, arguing that the NDAA’s language is so unconstitutionally broad and vague as to open the door to arrests and indefinite detentions for speech and political activity that might be critical of the government.