• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Infinite Detention Without Trial - what does it mean?

Tapio

Muse
Tapio
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
756
Hello there!

I'm a Finnish guy who'd like to better understand a recent development I read about USA politics.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/obama_to_sign_indefinite_detention_bill_into_law/singleton/

The ACLU said last night that the bill contains “harmful provisions that some legislators have said could authorize the U.S. military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world” and added: “if President Obama signs this bill, it will damage his legacy.” Human Rights Watch said that Obama’s decision “does enormous damage to the rule of law both in the US and abroad” and that “President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.”
Click to expand...

The bolded part is what, as a foreigner, concerns me the most.

I'm not sure what to make of the whole article...I mean, is this for real? Is the article portraying a balanced and educated opinion? If so, what do you guys think will actually take place after this?
 
Last edited:
Tapio said:
The bolded part is what, as a foreigner, concerns me the most.

I'm not sure what to make of the whole article...I mean, is this for real? Is the article portraying a balanced and educated opinion? If so, what do you guys think will actually take place after this?
Click to expand...
You'll find that every country, even Finland, reserves the right to hold enemy combatants in an armed conflict until said armed conflict is over. And it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions to try them merely for being an enemy combatant.
 
WildCat said:
You'll find that every country, even Finland, reserves the right to hold enemy combatants in an armed conflict until said armed conflict is over. And it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions to try them merely for being an enemy combatant.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand that. So, to you the whole fuss is nothing to worry about and changes nothing, or maybe changes things for the better?

Any other opinions?
 
It seems to me the worry is over the rather fuzzy definition of "enemy combatant", which could conceivably be applied to US citizens on US soil.
Indefinite detention without trial seemingly being unconstitutional.
 
That's how I read the article as well and why I wanted to hear from a native English speaker if I read it correctly. In my mind the mere thought of a law making it possible to infinitely detain practically anyone without trial is truly a horrifying one.
 
If the only prerequisite for having a legal status as "enemy combatant" is that the government affirm so, that opens a very wide loophole in our 4th amendment that frankly, concerns me greatly.

The other "fuzzy" term in this concept is "until the end of hostilities". Since we are not at war with a specific nation's government, what defines the "end of hostilities"? I imagine that we'll be waging our "war on terror" with Congressional approval indefinitely, which seriously undermines the idea behind holding someone until the end of hostilities.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
You'll find that every country, even Finland, reserves the right to hold enemy combatants in an armed conflict until said armed conflict is over. And it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions to try them merely for being an enemy combatant.
Click to expand...

In the case of the "war on terrorism" there is the question as to whether "until the armed conflict is over" really means "indefinitely" since nobody expects terrorism to end any time soon.

There is also the question of what is meant by "enemy combatant" and in this case it seems to be rather broadly defined.

There is also the question of whether the United States will be able to hold American citizens without charges or a trial. I don't see any wording in the legislation that makes an exception for American citizens.

So the government could potentially hold anyone they wanted -- including American citizens -- forever without bringing charges or giving them a trial simply by claiming that they are suspected of aiding a terrorist.

I find that troubling, and so should you.

-Bri
 
See Boumediene v. Bush. A person who is accused of a crime ("illegal enemy combatant") is entitled to the rights of the accused laid on in the Bill of Rights (or an equivalent substitute).

A person who is not accused of any crime can be held as a prisoner of war ("enemy combatant") but must be treated as such under the Geneva Conventions, and must be released at the end of major hostilities. (The war in Afganistan, for example, is such a war, but the "war on terrorism" is not such a war. If you arrest someone as a terrorist, they would fall in the first category--and enjoy the rights of the accused.)

A law that attempts to carve out any other category that allows for indefinite detention should be found unconstitutional.

ETA: As I mentioned in other threads on this topic, it's possible for an individual to fall into both categories--prison of war AND accused of a crime, but it is not possible, IMO, to have a third category that fits into neither of these. . . at least not constitutionally.
 
Last edited:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=224916

Here's a thread about it...^

Carl Levin created the provision with the idea that it will be applied to terrorist without abuse or ambiguities. But since it seems terrorist isn't clearly defined it is always subject to abuse and would set a horrible (and a seemingly unconstitutional) precedent.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...th-detainees/2011/11/27/gIQAf2Qn2N_story.html

The legislation in Carl Levin and John McCains own words...^
 
Thank you very much for your thoughts. Gets me kinda worried.

Does anyone care to elaborate on what potential benefits this law has, all things considered?
 
Tapio said:
That's how I read the article as well and why I wanted to hear from a native English speaker if I read it correctly. In my mind the mere thought of a law making it possible to infinitely detain practically anyone without trial is truly a horrifying one.
Click to expand...
No, it applies only to people covered under the AUMF. Meaning those who "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons".

Due process still applies, all detainees have the right to contest their detentions in a civilian court.

What this is really about is a pissing match between Congress and the President over who gets to determine whether the military or the Justice Dept. gets to detain/try those covered under the 2001 AUMF.
 
Last edited:
Bikewer said:
It seems to me the worry is over the rather fuzzy definition of "enemy combatant", which could conceivably be applied to US citizens on US soil.
Click to expand...

Unless they changed the bill before it was passed, it explicitly said U.S. citizens were not subject to military detention this way. At any rate, the issue is moot. The rights of the accused laid out in the Bill of Rights is a limitation on the authority of the government over anyone it holds, not just citizens. (The language in the constitution is clear and careful about the distinction between "persons" or "people" or "the accused" and "citizens".)

Again, Boumediene v. Bush says as much. Even a non-citizen detainee held in Guantanamo accused of criminal activity has the right to writ of habeas corpus (or its equivalent).
 
WildCat said:
No, it applies only to people covered under the AUMF. Meaning those who "determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons".

Due process still applies, all detainees have the right to contest their detentions in a civilian court.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If a person is accused of a crime, they get the rights of the accused.

If this section of the Defense Authorization Act says otherwise, it is unconstitutional.
 
WildCat said:
What this is really about is a pissing match between Congress and the President over who gets to determine whether the military or the Justice Dept. gets to detain/try those covered under the 2001 AUMF.
Click to expand...

This sounds weird. I wonder, what difference does it make?
 
Bri said:
In the case of the "war on terrorism" there is the question as to whether "until the armed conflict is over" really means "indefinitely" since nobody expects terrorism to end any time soon.
Click to expand...
"Indefinitely" applies to every war ever fought.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
See Boumediene v. Bush. A person who is accused of a crime ("illegal enemy combatant") is entitled to the rights of the accused laid on in the Bill of Rights (or an equivalent substitute).
Click to expand...
Irrelevant as to status. Illegal or legal, enemy combatants can still be held until the end of hostilities if so desired.

And I'm not sure if it is a crime under US law to be an illegal/unlawful/unprivileged enemy combatant, rather it is a term used to describe a combatant who does not meet the requirements for POW status under Article 4. As the Supreme Court has ruled, then they are treated under the provisions of Commmon Article 3 rather than enjoy the privileges POWs are afforded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom