Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to NDAA Detention Power

[charrob]

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to NDAA Detention Power (http://news.antiwar.com/2014/04/28/supreme-court-rejects-challenge-to-ndaa-detention-power/)

The US Supreme Court has further enhanced the administration’s ability to detain anyone, at any time, on any pretext today, when it refused to hear the Hedges v. Obama case, meaning an Appeals Court ruling on the matter will stand.

The case stems from a 2012 lawsuit brought by Chris Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky and others, and sought to block the enforcement of a 2012 National Defense Authorization Act statute that allows the president to unilaterally impose indefinite detention on anyone, without access to courts, if he personally believes something they did “aided” the Taliban or al-Qaeda.

Courts initially banned such detentions, over intense objection from President Obama, who argued that prohibiting the detentions would be an unconstitutional restriction of presidential power.

The Appeals Court eventually restored the detention power, however, insisting that Hedges et al didn’t have standing to contest their future detention because they couldn’t prove that the president might decide to detain them at some point in the future.

The standing argument effectively makes it impossible to challenge the NDAA statute, as it precludes challenges before the detention takes place, and once a person has been disappeared into military custody under the NDAA, the law explicitly denies them any access to the courts.

From last year:





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsGJpTAsV8k&

[HVACTech]

that makes it official.

we are a dictatorship.

[Warlord]

thank you

[Lucille]

The standing argument effectively makes it impossible to challenge the NDAA statute, as it precludes challenges before the detention takes place, and once a person has been disappeared into military custody under the NDAA, the law explicitly denies them any access to the courts.

How convenient.

[charrob]

How convenient.



I agree; what's happening is astonishing (I'm surprised it's not being picked up in the media more; this is a huge defeat for liberty). As this (http://my.firedoglake.com/shahidbuttar/2014/04/29/hedges-v-obama-the-supreme-court-digs-its-head-deeper-into-the-sand/) article describes:

"By dismissing Hedges, the Court effectively rejected a challenge to the government’s military detention power, specifically because the plaintiffs couldn’t prove that they would be subjected to it. Almost exactly one year before, the Supreme Court dismissed Clapper vs. Amnesty International, allowing the NSA to evade a years-long legal challenge, specifically because the plaintiffs in that case could not prove that they were being monitored.

Within weeks of that decision, the Snowden leaks exposed that absence of proof as a farce, by revealing that hundreds of millions of Americans are monitored. Yet again, in dismissing the Hedges case, the justices of the Supreme Court stuck their heads in the sand, choosing to defer to executive secrecy rather than do their jobs to defend constitutional rights.

In both Clapper and Hedges, the Supreme Court forced plaintiffs to provide evidence despite its simple unavailability. Imposing so demanding a burden of proof in the face of executive secrecy allows government secrecy to trump judicial independence. In other words, the court is not only abdicating its role of enforcing the Constitution, but even its own institutional power to check or balance the executive in the future."

[francisco]

...The US Supreme Court has further enhanced the administration’s ability to detain anyone, at any time, on any pretext today, when it refused to hear the Hedges v. Obama case, meaning an Appeals Court ruling on the matter will stand...

...Courts initially banned such detentions, over intense objection from President Obama, who argued that prohibiting the detentions would be an unconstitutional restriction of presidential power...

...The standing argument effectively makes it impossible to challenge the NDAA statute, as it precludes challenges before the detention takes place, and once a person has been disappeared into military custody under the NDAA, the law explicitly denies them any access to the courts...



DoublePlusScary

What will it take for the American public to wake up??

[CCTelander]

How convenient.


The clowns in gowns come through yet again.

Can't you just smell the freedom?

[Anti Federalist]

Lovely...the Gowned Clowns strike again.

[Anti Federalist]

DoublePlusScary

What will it take for the American public to wake up??

They are awake, and they want this, and accept it.

All one has to do is look at the throngs of people cheering martial law in Boston last year.

[francisco]

They are awake, and they want this, and accept it.

All one has to do is look at the throngs of people cheering martial law in Boston last year.

That's the most depressing and scary thing of all.

I think I need a drink.

[TonySutton]

If the president disappeared the USSC, I wonder if they would want to review it then...

[ZENemy]

Viable solutions are impossible from within the system, because the system is the problem.

[tod evans]

They're freewheelin' out of control...

[Origanalist]

I feel safer.

[HOLLYWOOD]

http://www.libertystickers.com/static/images/clowns-in-gowns.gif
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-WqdW2Q7XvF4/Us0BL6cTKUI/AAAAAAAAzXs/50J5TGGiWFk/s1600/3.gif

[NewRightLibertarian]

Get involved and fight this in your communities, folks. The POS courts won't do anything but rubberstamp this tyranny:

http://www.pandaunite.org/takeback

[HVACTech]

I feel safer.

yeah, it's like that warm fuzzy feeling that we ALL get when we see a cop following us...

bump.