Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Chris Hedges Responds to NDAA Defeat, "It is a black day for those who care about liberty" [View all]dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)107. Thanks for your reply
I am certainly not any kind of legal expert, and though I have read plenty on this issue, I still need to understand it better.
The court seems to take the position that the challenged statutes don't do much of anything. I'm still skeptical of this claim, reserving judgement for further research.
A question: Is an "illegal combatant" afforded the same rights as other citizens under this law, or do we lose the protection from indefinite detention (supposedly afforded citizens, according to the court) once we have been declared an illegal combatant?
One of the things that concerns me is the grey area around who can be declared to be an enemy combatant. From the Combatant Status Review Tribunals referenced in the court's opinion:
"...enemy combatants, which the Department of Defense then defined to mean an individual who was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces./blockquote]
Seems to me there's a lot of room for interpretation there, and I'm not comfortable with that, at all. I understand that this is not language in the law being litigated here, but it is relevant, I think, to who they could apply indefinite detention to.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
111 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Chris Hedges Responds to NDAA Defeat, "It is a black day for those who care about liberty" [View all]
Catherina
Jul 2013
OP
The Court turning a blind eye to this bad law is not the same as annulling it.
99th_Monkey
Jul 2013
#30
The loaded gun is the 2001 AUMF, which Congress should repeal or amend substantially nt
geek tragedy
Jul 2013
#101
right this is what we were all debating on here when it was first written.
limpyhobbler
Jul 2013
#79
Lol, there you go again. The president claims to have the right to order the killing of an
sabrina 1
Jul 2013
#71
No, it has not said any such thing. It defers to the AUMF by NOT being specific, and under the AUMF
sabrina 1
Jul 2013
#73
No, we do not agree. The NDAA does not forbid the executive branch from detaining
sabrina 1
Jul 2013
#75
Big brother will not tolerate the impertinence of anyone trying to halt the steady assault on our
indepat
Jul 2013
#8
Did not read this opinion, but just summed up my cynical take on what has been transpiring
indepat
Jul 2013
#21
The court ruled that the NDAA doesn't authorize the detention of American citizens.
geek tragedy
Jul 2013
#24
I had read that: sounds like big brother has been overstepping in its zeal not to be accused of
indepat
Jul 2013
#33
District judge agreed, but the 2nd circuit overruled district judge. HOWEVER
geek tragedy
Jul 2013
#20
Wrong. It says Americans can be classified as enemy combatants and detained indefinitely now.
Octafish
Jul 2013
#53
K&R. Bad news, but the ACLU will keep up the fight. Also, maybe another whistle-blower like Snowden
quinnox
Jul 2013
#26
And Yet, Many Reflexively Genuflect To Authority When The Exsanguination Of Democracy Is Exposed
cantbeserious
Jul 2013
#29
So, as I read the decision, citizens cannot challenge the NDAA language regarding
struggle4progress
Jul 2013
#35
The Conference Report on the Bill was over 1000 pages long, reflecting the length of the bill and
struggle4progress
Jul 2013
#82