A federal appeals court of three Obama-appointed judges has rejected a previous ruling barring the government from enforcing the indefinite detention provisions in a recent national defense bill.
Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act last year, which includes provisions codifying indefinite detention for individuals suspected of allying with or supporting al-Qaeda or its affiliates.
Judge Katherine B. Forrest last month blocked the government from enforcing those particular statutes on grounds that they violate Constitutionally guaranteed rights to due process, in a case brought against the government by journalists and academics including Chris Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, and Noam Chomsky.
The Obama administration immediately appealed Forrest’s ruling, asking for an “immediate stay,” or suspension of the case’s proceedings. When Forrest denied the request, the government went to the Second US Court of Appeals in Manhattan and asked another judge for an emergency stay, which Judge Raymond J. Lohier granted.
The latest appeals court extended the stay, undermining Judge Forrest’s ruling that the government should be barred from enforcing the law.
“We conclude that the public interest weighs in favor of granting the government’s motion for a stay,” Appeals Court Judges Denny Chin, Raymond Lohier and Christopher Droney wrote in a statement on their ruling.
The appeals court ruled that, since the government has promised that citizens, journalists, and activists are not in danger of being detained as a result of this law, it is unnecessary to block its enforcement.
Both parties in the case have been directed by the court to file reply briefs in the next few months, through to December, after which a new calendar date will be scheduled to argue the case again. So, at least for the next few months, the NDAA’s detention provisions are in effect.
18 thoughts on “Appeals Court Restores NDAA’s Indefinite Detention Provisions”
We're a police state. Personally DOJ detained me for 5 months without a criminal charge and without a bail hearing. I was kept with convicted felons. I don't have a criminal record. The hardest part for me is that the government refuses to say it is sorry. I sued them and they said that they did it on purpose. They used the Prisoner Tracking System and they published a Privacy Act Notice in the Federal Register, Vol 69 p 23213 saying that the purpose of PTS is to hold federal prisoners detained for a criminal proceeding and that the records in the PTS system are those needed to hold federal prisoners detained for a criminal proceeding. That's supposed to give me a statutory right to damages under 5 USC 552a (e)(4)(B) or (I) and (G)(1)(D). In order to get me out of court DOJ lied and said that there doesn't have to be a criminal proceeding, there doesn't have to be an oath or affirmation, and there doesn't have to be a bail hearing.
I am just really upset about this. My father was a WWII vet and he was upset too. I wish my grandparents had stayed in Europe. People are crazy if they trust the U.S. government.
Three judicial stooges rule, "since the government has promised that citizens, journalists, and activists are not in danger of being detained as a result of this law, it is unnecessary to block its enforcement."
The "government promised", yeah whatever.
Wow, and I put so much faith in Obama's promises.
Is that promise in writing as part of the law? If that is the case, what is the purpose of the law?
A "promise" is as good as a lie to a blind bat, eh? Nudge, nudge. Say no more!
if McCain had won the last election I wonder how loud the cries of outrage would be over this.
There wouldn't be any since most of those in opposition would already be inside.
The fake left would have been howling.
so is it not clear who enforces the police state.
Judges, sissy attorneys and nearly all compliant PDs. Bankster heist, neocon wars and domestic oppression are all carried out under the guise of civil authority which has received all sorts of waivers to violate the Bill of Rights
The US Constitution and Bill of Rights is quite clear in in prohibiting military detention of US citizens on US soil; and the Federal Appeals Court – in overturning Judge Forrest's ruling in this case – has grossly violated the Constitution. This particular judge must be removed from his/her position and NEVER given another judgeship ever again.
Also, in 1876, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act as a result of the abusive Federal Military occupation of the defeated Confederacy; and, to this date, it still remains on the books; i.e., this law has NEVER been repealed. It is this strict ban against military policing of our streets that differentiates the US from any other country on Earth. Each and every state and locality has a police force for this very purpose; to patrol our streets and ensure the safety of the citizenry from violent criminals. The military is only for defense against foreign attack and to ensure safe borders. We also have state National Guard units that are available to lend aid in the event of natural or man-made disasters; but, they are not law enforcement personnel.
Well, Eileen, as one of the Bushco underlings once said…"”That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. ”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” Tough Ron Susskind did not identify the particular Bush underling, it has been established that it was Karl Rove who uttered that statement. Given that belief, why does it surprise you that the Courts now believe that the US Constitution and the BOR no longer rule and can be over-ridden by a determination that "public interest" can legally usurp established law.
A new reality is being created and the last line of defense (the Courts) against such an act has sold out.
Having a lawyer as a President is not a good idea. It's a bit like having a wolf in the hen house.
Then having an Oligarch as as potential President is not a good idea either!
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm! What about a tennis player? They are used to courts and rules.
The government promised! I wonder if the Obamas would let Chester the Molester sleep with their daughters as long as he promised not to molest them?
Ah, yes. The judiciary. Always there to put that final shine on the turd of tyranny. See the judiciary of the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, the U.S., etc. And Denny, Ray, and Chris are doing all this for your benefit!
The flaw in the latest court's argument is that the US government is an ally of al Qaeda. There is ample evidence of a US conspiracy with the original perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. By its own logic, then, the US government should therefore be indefinitely detained.
People in US should take their guns and really make revolution!!! Time is just right!!!
If they fail, who will speak for them, who will protect them later, if "criminal system will just label them suspected of allying with or supporting al-Qaeda or its affiliates"???….US citizens should march on Washington – armed and orginazed, full stop!!! peter czech
Such rules are common in many 3rd world countries, even when enacted by dictators they are accepted by the legislature and courts.
We must get the following analysis to the plaintiffs: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/05/1140438/…
Plaintiffs, judges, & Congress have missed the truly horrifying truth about the NDAA that's getting snuck thru the backdoor.
Comments are closed.