3 ms·

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. If you were right, this lawsuit wouldn't have been filed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fisc

by readme 14y ago

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. If you were right, this lawsuit wouldn't have been filed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012#Legal_challenges_to_indefinite_detention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_... >A lawsuit was filed January 13, 2012 against the Obama Administration and Members of the U.S. Congress by a group including former New York Times reporter Christopher Hedges challenging the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012[62] The plaintiffs contend that Section 1021(b)(2) of the law allows for __detention of citizens and permanent residents taken into custody in the U.S.__ on “suspicion of providing substantial support to groups engaged in hostilities against the U.S. such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban.[62]

tptacek 14y ago
I'm probably not wrong. The 2002-2003 AUMF resolutions provided more or less open-ended detention capabilities to the executive. The NDAA limited those to settings in which Al Qaeda was directly implicated. It's not my claim that the Obama administration lacks indefinite detention capability (every "wartime" administration has that); it's my claim that the NDAA is a bad example of overreach on the part of the executive. Put differently: the opposition party in Congress at the time the 2012 NDAA was proposed was lobbying for a much broader capability. The administration had to spend political capital to limit the degrees of freedom they had.