As most of you probably know, Obama signed the Defense Bill yesterday. Now it probably comes as no surprise that an Arab American like myself does not think too favorably about the indefinite military detention provision. What I was curious about however, was how a provision like that isn't seen as violating the Bill of Rights. Now seeing as I only have a rudimentary understanding of the law I figured I should come here and see if some of my more well versed friends could shed me some light!
Well, it remains to be seen whether the provision will survive scrutiny by the courts, but with the current makeup of the SCOTUS, I would expect that it will. Although given how some of the decisions have gone down in the past decade or so, I don't think it is a slamdunk by any means. I'll be watching for that.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Voronwë the Faithful wrote:Well, it remains to be seen whether the provision will survive scrutiny by the courts, but with the current makeup of the SCOTUS, I would expect that it will. Although given how some of the decisions have gone down in the past decade or so, I don't think it is a slamdunk by any means. I'll be watching for that.
I assume that by that you mean that you hope that the provision is overturned. I just wanted to make it clear that while I think it is possible that it will, I think it is unlikely. So you really hope that I am wrong, not right.
Here is an example of why I think there is a chance that the court will rule the provision is unconstitional:
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
I really don't understand the case for the indefinite detention provison. I just fundamentally don't understand how it can be argued that it does not violate the third and especially the fifth amendment of the constitution! How does such a provision not deprive an American of life, liberty, or property without "due process of law"? I guess things will become clearer once this goes to court...
I wish I didn't think it was already too late. But I absolutely do not see the US making the sorts of decisions that would begin to undo the harm done to the country by the criminally wrong response to 9/11.
Things were going sideways already, but that was the capper.
S'wiz, I suspect when people read abpout detention of terrorist suspects, what the see is TERRORIST suspects. Terrorists are bad and should be locked away. But a suspect is anyone the government says it is.
Bad, bad, bad decision.
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
One can make a fairly strong case for the ability to detain hostiles, regardless of origin, during wartime, for the duration of the hostilities. There are episodes where the US government has done so, going back to at least the Civil War. An American who takes up arms, or who otherwise engages in hostilities, has been considered as a POW before.
The problem is defining wartime and duration. I am deeply leery of an open-ended permit to do this, not only because of the prospect of it becoming a tool of persecution, but because the notion of Perpetual War is the gateway to all forms of Totalitarianism.
Superwizard thank you so much for starting a thread on this, I only heard about this through articles on Facebook and Twitter. Why was no one talking about this on the news. While you are right to be concerned as an Arab American, it seems it can be applied to all US citizens which is why I am miffed that no one was talking about it in mass media.
(Also I am glad to see you on the board)
I hope it gets overturned.
I was really disappointed that Obama did not veto the bill as he had initially suggested (although the reasons he gave for the veto were contrary to why he should have vetoed it). I understand it is a big defense spending bill and tough to veto, but... this is so fundamental.
Wilma, I heard about it on the daily show with John Stewart...
'You just said "your getting shorter": you've obviously been drinking too much ent-draught and not enough Prim's.' - Jude
Just watching Bill Maher - a Democratic rep on it said that Pres. Obama signed the defense spending bill, and then signed the "indefinite detention" bit with a clarifying statement that his administration would not "indefinitely detain". Apparently, this is not uncommon. Nevertheless, it is law now - and is not applicable just to his administration, is it?
'You just said "your getting shorter": you've obviously been drinking too much ent-draught and not enough Prim's.' - Jude
That's essentially correct, Inanna. Obama issued a "signing statement" that interpreted the law as not constitutionally allowing the administration to indefinitely detain American citizens. A future administration could undo that, but it would take an executive order to do so (meaning that the new administration would have to take affirmative action to establish a different interpretation of the law.
Not to sound too much like an Obama apologist, but I think that was about as much as he could have done under these circumstances. He had already got to the wall and gotten significant changes made to the provision; I don't think he could have gotten any better changes. And simply not signing a military authorization bill was not an option. He would have been impeached.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
