<\/p>\n
Ronald Martin<\/strong> In January 2012,\u00a0New York Times Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Christopher Hedges filed a federal\u00a0lawsuit<\/a>\u00a0against President Obama, challenging detention provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of Fiscal Year 2012.<\/p>\n The Act authorized $662 billion in funding, \u201cfor defense of the United States and it\u2019s interests abroad.\u201d Central to Hedges\u2019 suit, a controversial provision set forth in subsection\u00a01021 of Title X, Sub-title (d)<\/a>\u00a0entitled \u201cCounter-Terrorism,\u201d authorizing indefinite military detention of individuals the government suspects are involved in terrorism, including U.S. citizens arrested on American soil.<\/p>\n Over the last two years, a broad\u00a0coalition<\/a>\u00a0including the\u00a0Tenth Amendment Center<\/a>, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, and many others formed in opposition\u00a0to indefinite detention provisions, concerned with over-broad language open to wide interpretation and the growing scope of presidential authority. In support of Hedges, many of these individuals and organizations joined together as anAmicus Curiae<\/a>, otherwise known as a Friend of the Court. The coalition filed an Amicus Brief supporting Hedges\u2019 interpretation of the controversial issues abounding in\u00a0Hedges v. Obama.<\/em>\u00a0The Amicus Curiae states, \u201cEach entity is dedicated, inter alia (among other things), to the correct construction, interpretation, and application of the law.\u201d<\/p>\n For those not familiar with an Amicus Brief, it is a document filed with a court by a person or group not directly involved in the case. The brief often contains information useful to a judge when evaluating the merits of a case and it becomes part of the official record. In addition to filing a brief, Amicus Curiae can involve itself in a case in many ways. It can contribute academic evaluations of subject matters, it can testify in a case, and on rare cases it can help contribute to oral arguments. Many times, state and local governments also join a case as a \u201cFriend\u201d if they believe it will impact them. This happened in\u00a0Hedges v. Obama.<\/em> A large number of concerned individuals and advocacy organizations enjoined the case as Amicus Curiae.<\/p>\n The Amicus Brief of this case commences by focusing on the ambiguity of the language in section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA.<\/p>\n \u201cRarely has a short statute been subject to more radically different interpretations than Section 1021 of the NDAA of 2012.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The \u201cFriends\u201d contend the verbiage offers diametrically opposite meanings.<\/p>\n \u201dThe Framers would be greatly shocked to hear the United States assert that an American President has power to place civilians in the U.S. or citizens abroad into military custody absent status as armed combatants. No President has ever held such power.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n As the Amicus Curiae implies, the language of this law is dangerously vague. Many believe the provisions of Section 1021 grant dictatorial powers to the federal government to arrest any American citizen without a warrant and indefinitely detain them without charge. Detainees can be shipped to the military\u2019s offshore prisons and kept there until \u201cthe end of hostilities.\u201d<\/p>\n
\ntenthamendmentcenter.com<\/a>
\nJune 28, 2013<\/p>\n