The Section Preventing Indefinite Detention of Americans without Trial Removed from Final NDAA Bill

Michael Krieger
While the Feinstein-Lee Amendment wasn’t perfect, it was a small step forward as I outlined in my piece:  My Thoughts on the Feinstein-Lee Amendment to the NDAA.  Amazingly, this small victory has been stripped out of the final bill by our “representatives.”  If this doesn’t prove without a shadow of a doubt that this government is criminal and wants the power to lock up citizens without trial I don’t know what will.

From the Huffington Post:

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. Read more >>

Senate Votes Down Military Imprisonment Of Americans

The Senate took a step Thursday toward ending the indefinite detention of Americans in the U.S., voting for a narrow amendment that some civil liberties groups opposed, even though they said it was in the right direction.

The measure, offered by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013, specifies that citizens and legal residents suspected of terrorism in the U.S. cannot be held without trial indefinitely.

"I know this is a sensitive subject, but I really believe we stand on the values of our country, and the value of our country is justice for all," said Feinstein before the Senate voted 67 to 29 to add her provision to the NDAA.

Civil libertarians had problems with her amendment, even though many regarded it as a positive step.

The key sentence in her measure says: "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."

First, the rights groups argued, the measure does not provide justice for all, because it does not apply to non-citizens or Americans caught overseas. Read more >>

Why You Should Be Outraged About The Ruling To Keep The NDAA Indefinite Detention Clause

On Tuesday a federal appeals court ruled the government can indefinitely detain anyone, at least until the courts decide whether to permanently block or confirm the indefinite detention clause (i.e. §1021) of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act.

That the NDAA is fully enforceable right now is scary enough, but the details of the ruling are truly bothersome to those that have been following the rulings in the case.

First, a recap why §1021 was ruled unconstitutional and how the government reacted. Journalists and activists sued to stop the provisions, which allow the government to indefinitely detain anyone who provides "substantial support" to the Taliban, al-Qaeda or "associated forces," including "any person who has committed a belligerent act" in the aid of such enemy forces. Read more >>

Obama appeals NDAA indefinite detention ban

A federal judge blocked the government from enforcing a statute that allows the indefinite detention without trial of terrorism suspects. That means a victory for journalists and the activists fighting the law who could be arrested because their jobs sometimes require them to interact with suspect on the government's radar, but it could be a victory short-lived.

Only one day after a judge granted a permanent injunction on the NDAA provision, the White House asked for an appeal. Tangerine Bolen, the founder of Revolution Truth and a plaintiff in the case, joins RTs Liz Wahl for more.

US Totalitarianism Loses Major Battle As Judge Permanently Blocks NDAA's Military Detention Provision

Back in January, Pulitzer winning journalist Chris Hedges sued President Obama and the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act, specifically challenging the legality of the Authorization for Use of Military Force or, the provision that authorizes military detention for people deemed to have "substantially supported" al Qaeda, the Taliban or "associated forces."

Hedges called the president's action allowing indefinite detention, which was signed into law with little opposition from either party "unforgivable, unconstitutional and exceedingly dangerous." He attacked point blank the civil rights farce that is the neverending "war on terror" conducted by both parties, targetting whom exactly is unclear, but certainly attaining ever more intense retaliation from foreigners such as the furious attacks against the US consulates in Egypt and Libya.

He asked  "why do U.S. citizens now need to be specifically singled out for military detention and denial of due process when under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force the president can apparently find the legal cover to serve as judge, jury and executioner to assassinate U.S. citizens." A few months later, in May, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest ruled in favor of a temporary injunction blocking the enforcement of the authorization for military detention. Today, the war againt the true totalitarian terror won a decisive battle, when in a 112-opinion, Judge Forrest turned the temporary injunction, following an appeal by the totalitarian government from August 6, into a permanent one. Read more >>