6 ms·
The big thing about Israel is that they allow for administrative detention without trial. It's really hard to get worked up about surveillance when they don't
by einhverfr 13y ago
The big thing about Israel is that they allow for administrative detention without trial. It's really hard to get worked up about surveillance when they don't even have to file charges to keep you in jail.
- Samuel_Michon 13y agoHow is that different from the US? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#Habeas_corpus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#H...
- einhverfr 13y agoThe point is that Israeli citizens and nationals can be held without trial indefinitely in Israel. That is not something we have to worry about here to the same extent.
- Samuel_Michon 13y agoSure, maybe not to the same extent, but as long as the definition of an ‘enemy combatant’ remains unclear, American citizens can be arrested and held without formal charges or trial.
- einhverfr 13y agoThus far the government has shown that they are unwilling to let the Supreme Court review that regarding citizens. They would rather go to trial than let a question (where the individual was captured far from combat zones) go before the Supreme Court. We should remember what Bush asked the 4th Circuit to do when Padilla petitioned to the Supreme Court for the second time.... Fortunately the court would have none of these games.
- mickt 13y agoOr the UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2006#Extending_the_period_of_detention_without_charge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2006#Extending_th... Laws written originally to thwart the IRA were used to detain suspects and in many cases innocent people, who happened to be Irish, where convicted after confessions were cohered out of them. Can you imagine being jailed for 90 days and being interrogated for that length of time? It seems plausible that the same thing will happen to innocent Arabs and Muslims whom are in the wrong place at the wrong time.
- idoco 13y agoHa? Administrative detention is legal in the states, under the USA PATRIOT Act - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_detention#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_detention#United.... I think that invalidates your argument.
- einhverfr 13y agoYes, for seven days. My understanding from following Ha'aretz is that indefinite detention is allowed there.
- idoco 13y agoCan you support your claim for the seven days limitation? In the Wikipedia link they use the term "indefinite detention without trial" EDIT: Also here - http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20011005_ramasastry.html http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20011005_ramasastry....
- einhverfr 13y agoOk, so what the USAPATRIOT Act allegedly does (and I want to expand on this below) is allow up to 7 days of detention without habeas petitions having any effect. This can then be extended, allegedly to 6 months, and renewed every six months indefinitely. This is what the statute says. So that's what the statute claims to do. In practice it probably does not do so. There are two reasons to think this. First you have the fact that even the Bush Administration refused to rely on this provision during either Padilla case, arguing instead that the AUMF of 2001 was the authority to detain, despite the fact that the Supreme Court had ruled in Hamdi that there was at least some Habeas Corpus protection available to those detained under the AUMF, but the exact amount was unclear. It's further worth noting that the Supreme Court threw out Padilla's first habeas petition as improperly filed when Handi was released and in the subsequent petition case (Padilla v. Hanft), the DoJ continued to argue on AUMF grounds, not on suspension clause grounds. When Padilla lost in the 4th Circuit and appealed to the Supreme Court on the second time, the government abruptly decided to charge him in federal court, and then asked the 4th circuit to vacate their decision, which the 4th circuit declined to do (I think that such an effort on Bush's part was meant to slow down the next case). The second problem is Boumediene v. Bush (decided three years after Hamdi and Padilla v. Hanft), which held that the Military Commissions Act was a suspension of habeas, but that judges should hear habeas petitions anyway, arguing that judges had the power to grant habeas petitions even if Congress suspended the writ. This means that Congress claiming to say habeas doesn't apply doesn't in fact mean that habeas doesn't apply. I read Supreme Court cases for fun. I suppose this means I need a life :-P
- Peaker 13y agoIt requires a repeated, renewed court approval and I don't think it is indefinite. I do agree it is undemocratic and very problematic, though.