The NDAA law was passed even though many on the left thought it was to
ambiguous relating to the President’s power to arrest and detain those that
were deemed supportive of
terrorists.
The law was challenged by some well known liberals arguing that the threat
of detention interfered with their Free Speech and Freedom of the press and
that the law was not clear in this aspect.
A judge agree with the ambiguity and issued an injunction against use of the
questionable sections of the law.
An appeal was filed on behalf of the President stating that the injunction
interfered with the President’s power to deal with the threat of terror.
A high court ruled in favor of the President and against the plaintiffs
removing the injunction.
The Supremes ruled that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to challenge the
law which does not mean that they believe that the law precludes arrest and
detention of American citizens, it means that they believe the law is so
ambiguous that the plaintiffs couldn’t prove there’s a threat. Or basically saying the law couldn’t be challenged until someone was arrested and detained.
Some claim that the NDAA doesn’t change existing law which isn’t much
comfort because under existing law American citizen Jose Padilla was arrested,
detained, and by some definitions tortured, with out habeas corpus rights.
Some on the Right don’t like this President to have such a powerful tool, but
Senators McCain and Graham support the law's ambiguity and recognize that this power
may some day be in the hands of the Right.
After signing the NDAA the President promised that his administration wouldn’t
detain American citizens without trial.
I wonder if this promise is reassuring to Mr. Hedges and others on the
left fighting to save our Constitutional rights. And what will Jeb Bush do should he be elected president?
There is a great article at Wikipedia including great sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedges_v._Obama
No comments:
Post a Comment