{"id":115653,"date":"2014-05-01T13:54:49","date_gmt":"2014-05-01T13:54:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/?p=115653"},"modified":"2014-05-01T13:54:50","modified_gmt":"2014-05-01T13:54:50","slug":"supreme-court-refuses-uphold-constitution-allows-indefinite-detention","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-refuses-uphold-constitution-allows-indefinite-detention\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Refuses to Uphold the Constitution: Allows Indefinite Detention"},"content":{"rendered":"

Washington\u2019s Blog<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>
\nReprinted with permission<\/p>\n

Pulitzer prize winning reporter Chris Hedges \u2014 along with\u00a0journalist Naomi Wolf, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, activist Tangerine Bolen and others \u2014\u00a0<\/span>sued the government<\/a>\u00a0to join the NDAA\u2019s allowance of the indefinite detention of Americans.<\/span><\/p>\n

The trial judge in the case asked the government attorneys\u00a05 times<\/em>\u00a0whether journalists like Hedges could be indefinitely detained simply for interviewing and then\u00a0writing about<\/em>\u00a0bad guys.<\/p>\n

The government\u00a0refused<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0to promise<\/em><\/a>\u00a0that journalists like Hedges won\u2019t be thrown in a dungeon for the rest of their lives without any right to talk to a judge.<\/p>\n

The trial judge\u00a0ruled<\/a>\u00a0that the indefinite detention bill was unconstitutional. But the court of appeal\u00a0overturned<\/a>\u00a0that decision, based upon\u00a0the assumption<\/a>\u00a0that limited the NDAA to non-U.S. citizens:<\/p>\n

We thus conclude, consistent with the text and buttressed in part by the legislative history, that Section 1021 [of the 2012 NDAA] means this:\u00a0With respect to individuals who are not citizens, are not lawful resident aliens, and are not captured or arrested within the United States<\/strong>, the President\u2019s [Authorization for Use of Military Force] authority includes the authority to detain those responsible for 9\/11 as well as those who were a part of, or substantially supported, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners\u2013a detention authority that Section 1021 concludes was granted by the original AUMF.\u00a0But with respect to citizens, lawful resident aliens, or individuals captured or arrested in the United States, Section 1021 simply says nothing at all<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The court of appeal ignored the fact that the co-sponsors of the indefinite detention law said it\u00a0does<\/em>\u00a0apply<\/a>\u00a0to American citizens, and that top legal scholars\u00a0agree<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court\u00a0declined to hear<\/a>\u00a0an appeal of the case, thus blessing and letting stand the indefinite detention law stand unchanged.<\/p>\n

The court of appeal\u2019s Orwellian reasoning may sound \u2014 at first blush – like it might be a good thing.\u00a0\u00a0 After all, the court said there\u2019s no indication that the indefinite detention provision will be applied against U.S. citizens.<\/p>\n

However, by refusing to strike down the law and insist that any future laws explicitly exempt U.S. citizens, it leaves discretion in the hands of the executive branch.<\/p>\n

The effect of the decision will be to allow the U.S. government to kidnap and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens who protest or dissent against the government \u2026 and the courts will\u00a0<\/strong>never hear<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0any legal challenge from the prisoners. The detainee will not get to say:<\/p>\n

The courts said the indefinite detention law isn\u2019t written to apply to U.S. citizens, so you have to let me go!<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And he won\u2019t get to say:<\/p>\n

You\u2019re confusing me with another John Smith, and I can prove it!<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

After all, prisoners can be held under the indefinite detention bill without trial, without being allowed to present evidence or hearing the evidence against them, without letting the citizen consult with a lawyer, and without even charging the citizen with any crime.<\/p>\n

So \u2014 if you\u2019re thrown into a hole somewhere \u2014 no one will even\u00a0hear<\/em>\u00a0your story.<\/p>\n

Chris Hedges\u00a0noted<\/a>\u00a0in November:<\/p>\n

If [the indefinite detention law] stands it will mean, as [the trial judge] pointed out in her 112-page opinion, that\u00a0whole categories of Americans\u2013and here you can assume dissidents and activists\u2013will be subject to seizure by the military and indefinite and secret detention<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead\u00a0agrees<\/a>:<\/p>\n

No matter what the Obama administration may say to the contrary, actions speak louder than words, and history shows that the U.S. government is not averse to locking up its own citizens for its own purposes. What the NDAA does is open the door for the government to detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker. According to government guidelines for identifying domestic extremists\u2013a word used interchangeably with terrorists, that technically applies to\u00a0anyone exercising their First Amendment rights in order to criticize the government<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

If you think they\u2019re crying wolf, just remember that the CIA director\u00a0relabeled \u201cdissidents\u201d as \u201cterrorists\u201d<\/a> in 1972 so that he could continue spying on them \u2026 and\u00a0nothing has changed<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Daniel Ellsberg notes that Obama\u2019s claimed power to indefinitely detain people without charges or access to a lawyer or the courts is a power that even\u00a0King George \u2014 the guy we fought the Revolutionary War against \u2014 didn\u2019t claim<\/a>. And former judge and adjunct professor of constitutional law Andrew Napolitano points out that Obama\u2019s claim that he can indefinitely detain prisoners\u00a0even after they are acquitted of their crimes<\/em>\u00a0is a power that even\u00a0Hitler and Stalin didn\u2019t claim<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Access to justice is already being\u00a0severely curtailed in America<\/a>. Even when the prisoner\u00a0is<\/em>\u00a0afforded a trial, it is becoming more and more common for the government to prosecute cases\u00a0based upon \u201csecret evidence\u201d<\/a>\u00a0that they don\u2019t show to the defendant, his lawyer \u2026 or sometimes even the\u00a0judge<\/em>\u00a0hearing the case. The government uses \u201csecret evidence\u201d to\u00a0spy on Americans<\/a>, prosecute\u00a0leaking<\/a>\u00a0or\u00a0terrorism<\/a>\u00a0charges (even against\u00a0U.S. soldiers<\/a>) and even to\u00a0assassinate people<\/a>. And see\u00a0this<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0this<\/a>.\u00a0Secret witnesses<\/a>\u00a0are being used in some cases. And sometimes lawyers are\u00a0not even allowed to read their own briefs<\/a>. Indeed, even the\u00a0laws\u00a0themselves<\/em>\u00a0are now starting to be kept secret<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But prisoners under the indefinite detention bill have it much worse: they don\u2019t get\u00a0any<\/em>\u00a0trial or opportunity to talk to a judge,\u00a0any<\/em>\u00a0access to a lawyer \u2026 or perhaps\u00a0any<\/em>\u00a0information about what they\u2019re even accused of\u00a0doing<\/em>\u00a0or why they were nabbed in the first place.<\/p>\n

After the Supreme Court published its decision, Tangerine Bolen\u00a0wrote<\/a>:<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear, first via Citizens United, then most recently via McCutcheon v. FTC, that corporations are \u201cpersons\u201d whose \u201cfree speech\u201d must be protected at all costs \u2014 including the cost of democracy \u2014 while our rights \u2014 the rights of living, breathing people, the fundamental right of due process and our fundamental rights of free speech and association \u2014 those no longer matter. They are to be trampled.<\/p>\n

Under the war on terror, the United States government has trampled upon the fundamental human rights of people around the world since 9\/11. The Bush administration manufactured a false war based on carefully crafted lies, false evidence and sickening manipulation. In the wake of that war, our courts prefer to continue to defer to a disingenuous national security narrative that has arisen out of the lies, paranoia, and incredible lawbreaking of our own government, including kidnapping, torturing, indefinitely imprisoning, and assassinating people with impunity \u2014 all of this against both reason and international law.<\/p>\n

We are no longer a nation ruled by laws.\u00a0<\/strong>[She’s right<\/a>.]\u00a0We are nation ruled by men who have so steeped themselves in a false narrative that at the same time they are exponentially increasing the ranks of terrorists, they are destroying the rule of law itself.\u00a0<\/strong>[Indeed, we\u2019ve gone from a nation of laws to a\u00a0nation of powerful men making one-sided laws to protect their own interests<\/a>\u00a0\u2026\u00a0in secret<\/a>. Government folks are\u00a0using laws to crush dissent<\/a>. It\u2019s gotten so bad that even\u00a0U.S. Supreme Court justices are saying\u00a0<\/a>that we are descending into tyranny.]\u00a0It is madness upon madness \u2014 the classic tale of becoming the evil you purport to fight while believing you remain righteous.<\/strong><\/p>\n

We have tried to stand up to this madness: we are outnumbered, outspent, and outgunned \u2014 a David intrepidly fighting a Goliath that spans the planet and has the power to shape our \u201creality\u201d \u2014 thus shaping what the courts even see. We have sacrificed greatly to do this \u2014 and yet we would do it all again.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Washington\u2019s Blog\u00a0 Reprinted with permission Pulitzer prize winning reporter Chris Hedges \u2014 along with\u00a0journalist Naomi Wolf, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, activist Tangerine Bolen and others \u2014\u00a0sued the government\u00a0to join the NDAA\u2019s allowance of the indefinite detention of Americans. The trial judge in the case asked the government attorneys\u00a05 times\u00a0whether journalists like Hedges could be […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":72487,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[487],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-115653","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-breaking-news"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115653","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=115653"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115653\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/72487"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=115653"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=115653"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=115653"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}