NDAA 2013: Will Congress kill indefinite detention without trial for Americans?
Americans might once again be guaranteed the right to trial: a clause in the most recent draft of next year’s defense spending bill ensures that United States citizens aren’t stripped of their right to habeas corpus.
RT,
28
November, 2012
Lawmakers
have included provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2013 that relieves those worried with how last year’s
bill allows for the indefinite detention of Americans without trial.
Under
the 2012 NDAA, any person considered a substantial supporter of a
group alleged to have committed hostilities against the US can be
held in a military prison until essentially the end of time without
ever being brought to court. In the latest draft of
next year’s NDAA, Congress is reminded of the writ of habeas corpus
and told any legal American resident must be awarded a fair trial.
“Nothing
in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50
U.S.C. 1541 note) or the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) shall be construed to deny the
availability of the writ of habeas corpus or to deny any
Constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under
Article III of the Constitution for any person who is lawfully in the
United States when detained pursuant to the Authorization for Use of
Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) and who is
otherwise entitled to the availability of such writ or such
rights,” reads
Sec 1033 (a) of the proposed Pentagon spending bill.
Elsewhere,
the NDAA draft orders that the president must inform Congress within
two days of any American detained under the Authorization for Use of
Military Force, a post-9/11 legislation that the Obama White House
has used to defend their supposed right to keep indefinite detention
on the books. A team of plaintiffs led by journalist Chris Hedges
have sued US Pres. Barack Obama for implementing the 2012 NDAA and
its indefinite detention provisions, but the fight has been stalled
by an appellate ruling that
removed an injunction from
District Judge Katherine Forrest that blocked those sections.
“If
the Obama administration simply appealed it, as we expected, it would
have raised this red flag,” Hedges
wrote on Reddit in September. “But
since they were so aggressive it means that once Judge Forrest
declared the law invalid, if they were using it, as we expect, they
could be held in contempt of court. This was quite disturbing, for it
means, I suspect, that US citizens, probably dual nationals, are
being held in military detention facilities almost certainly overseas
and maybe at home.”
By
way of a fight spearheaded by Hedges and a massive grassroots
campaign, efforts to remove the indefinite detention provision from
US law now seems to stand a chance at being successful. That isn’t
to say a fair and speedy trial will necessarily be without obstacles,
though. The 2013 NDAA still needs to pass the Senate and be signed
into law by the president, and there is ample time for anyone in
Washington to strike the latest provision or add new ones ensuring
indefinite detention remains a possibility. Last year, Pres. Obama’s
top aides said the White House would not sign off on the NDAA until
the indefinite detention clauses were removed. On New Year’s Eve,
Pres. Obama authorized it regardless with little comment to the press
aside from a signing statement acknowledging he had reservations
about the very bill he just put on the books.
Sen.
Carl Levin (D-Michigan), the chairman of the Senate Committee on
Armed Services, has claimed that the indefinite detention provisions
were insisted by
the president himself.
Even
if the latest copy stays intact, though, an US citizen held captive
by his own country might not have it that easy. Sec 1033 (c) reads,
“A
person who is lawfully in the United States when detained pursuant to
the Authorization for Use of Military Force shall be allowed to file
an application for habeas corpus relief in an appropriate district
court not later than 30 days after the date on which such person is
placed in military custody,” perhaps
paving the way for a full month of mistreatment at the hands of Uncle
Sam.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.