5 ms·

> The executive branch has been given no power to indefinitely detain Americans Wrong. 1) Section 412 of the USA PATRIOT act permits indefinite detention of i

> The executive branch has been given no power to indefinitely detain Americans Wrong. 1) Section 412 of the USA PATRIOT act permits indefinite detention of immigrants; see Jose Padilla, an American citizen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Padilla_(prisoner)#Habeas_corpus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Padilla_(prisoner)#Habeas... 2) Sections 1021 and 1022 of NDAA FY2012 (which Obama is defending right now in Obama v. Hedges): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NDAA_2012#Controversy_over_indefinite_detention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NDAA_2012#Controversy_over_ind...

rayiner 13y ago
Padilla was ultimatey tried and convicted in a federal civilian court. Obama v hedges has nothing to do with indefinite detention of US citizens. Obama's signing statement explicitly said the act should not be interpreted to encompass US citizens. Given that and the precedent in Hamdi v. Rumsfield, iys clear those NDAA provisions do not apply to citizens.
- obstacle1 13y ago
  >Padilla was ultimatey tried and convicted in a federal civilian court You're OK with indefinitely detaining American citizens until the government slaps some charges on & convicts? Spooky.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    I'm not "OK" with what happened to Padilla, but the contention was that the executive branch "has been given the power" to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens, and that assertion is false. Read the history of the Padilla case: http://www.nyclu.org/case/padilla-v-bushhamdi-v-rumsfeld-challenging-detention-of-us-citizen-without-charges-or-trial http://www.nyclu.org/case/padilla-v-bushhamdi-v-rumsfeld-cha.... See also: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/what-supreme-court-really-said-about-jose-padilla http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/what-supreme-cou.... There was a legal wrangling over the scope of the President's detention powers, and Padilla's appeal to the Supreme Court was rendered moot by the government deciding to charge him. No U.S. citizen has been indefinitely detained since.
- dpatru 13y ago
  In Hedges v Obama [1], the trial court blocked the government's power to indefinitely detain. The ruling was immediately appealed and the trial court's decision was stayed. I take it from the government's rush to appeal that there are people are being detained right now that would have had to be released had the ban been upheld. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedges_v._Obama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedges_v._Obama
  - rayiner 13y ago
    The injunction in Hedges blocked the detainment power in its entirety (on the basis of being unconstitutionally vague), not only detainment with respect to American citizens. Obama is fighting to preserve the detainment power, not for the power to detain American citizens, which would be contrary to his signing statement and the expressed intent of Congress.

rayiner 13y ago

Padilla was ultimatey tried and convicted in a federal civilian court. Obama v hedges has nothing to do with indefinite detention of US citizens. Obama's signing statement explicitly said the act should not be interpreted to encompass US citizens. Given that and the precedent in Hamdi v. Rumsfield, iys clear those NDAA provisions do not apply to citizens.

obstacle1 13y ago
>Padilla was ultimatey tried and convicted in a federal civilian court You're OK with indefinitely detaining American citizens until the government slaps some charges on & convicts? Spooky.
- rayiner 13y ago
  I'm not "OK" with what happened to Padilla, but the contention was that the executive branch "has been given the power" to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens, and that assertion is false. Read the history of the Padilla case: http://www.nyclu.org/case/padilla-v-bushhamdi-v-rumsfeld-challenging-detention-of-us-citizen-without-charges-or-trial http://www.nyclu.org/case/padilla-v-bushhamdi-v-rumsfeld-cha.... See also: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/what-supreme-court-really-said-about-jose-padilla http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/what-supreme-cou.... There was a legal wrangling over the scope of the President's detention powers, and Padilla's appeal to the Supreme Court was rendered moot by the government deciding to charge him. No U.S. citizen has been indefinitely detained since.
dpatru 13y ago
In Hedges v Obama [1], the trial court blocked the government's power to indefinitely detain. The ruling was immediately appealed and the trial court's decision was stayed. I take it from the government's rush to appeal that there are people are being detained right now that would have had to be released had the ban been upheld. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedges_v._Obama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedges_v._Obama
- rayiner 13y ago
  The injunction in Hedges blocked the detainment power in its entirety (on the basis of being unconstitutionally vague), not only detainment with respect to American citizens. Obama is fighting to preserve the detainment power, not for the power to detain American citizens, which would be contrary to his signing statement and the expressed intent of Congress.