2013 Version of NDAA: Easier to Indefinitely Detain Americans Without Charge Or Trial

2013 Version of NDAA: Easier to Indefinitely Detain Americans Without Charge Or Trial | NDAA-red-white-and-blue-300x233 | Civil Disobedience Civil Rights Government Government Corruption Know Your Rights Losing Rights Military NDAA News Articles Obama Exposed US Constitution & Bill Of Rights US News Unfortunately, it looks like the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)  for Fiscal Year 2013 makes it even easier for the U.S. government to  indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trial.

Despite the many claims that Americans in fact could not be  indefinitely detained under the 2012 version of the NDAA, a federal judge  stated in court that Americans could be held indefinitely under the  act earlier this year and ruled the provisions unconstitutional, a ruling  which was quickly reversed by a judge appointed by  Obama.

Some news outlets were falsely reporting that the new NDAA actually did more to protect the  rights of Americans, but upon further scrutiny, they retracted the statements  and indeed concluded that the new NDAA makes it easier  for the government to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely.

The misleading passage, found in Section 1033, states:

Nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50  U.S.C. 1541 note) or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012  (Public Law 112-81) shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of  habeas corpus or to deny any Constitutional rights in a court ordained or  established by or under Article III of the Constitution for any person who is  lawfully in the United States when detained pursuant to the Authorization for  Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) and who is  otherwise entitled to the availability of such writ or such  rights.

Attorney Bruce Afran, one of the attorneys representing the activists and  journalists who sued the Obama administration over the  indefinite detention provisions in the 2012 NDAA, clarified the language to  Business Insider.

Afran said that although indeed the provision gives U.S. citizens a right to  a civilian trial (Article III) based on “any [applicable] constitutional  rights,” there are no rules in place to actually exercise this right which means  that detained Americans actually have no way to get access to lawyers, their  family or even the court itself once they are detained by the military.

Afran also pointed out that the new NDAA goes beyond the previous version  currently in place.

“The new statute actually states that persons lawfully in the U.S. can be  detained under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force [AUMF]. The  original (the statute we are fighting in court) never went that far,” said  Afran.

“Therefore, under the guise of supposedly adding protection to Americans, the  new statute actually expands the AUMF to civilians in the U.S.,” Afran  added.

“The biggest thing about the [2012] NDAA was that you weren’t getting a trial … Nothing in here says that you’ll make it to an Article III court so it  literally does nothing,” said Dan Johnson, the founder of People Against the  NDAA (PANDA), to Business Insider. “It’s a bunch of words, basically.”

In an attempt to preempt some of the attempts to defend the NDAA, I might  point out sub-section c of Section 1033 of the 2013 NDAA which states:

(c) Habeas Applications- A person who is lawfully in the United States when  detained pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law  107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) shall be allowed to file an application for habeas  corpus relief in an appropriate district court not later than 30 days after the  date on which such person is placed in military custody.

While this sounds grand, it means absolutely nothing. Being “allowed to file  an application for habeas corpus relief in an appropriate district court not  later than 30 days after the date on which such person is placed in military  custody” does nothing in and of itself.

The “appropriate district court” is in no way obligated to grant the  application and if the way the judicial system has treated the horrifically  unconstitutional indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA in the recent past  is any indicator, I think it is safe to say that they will reject such  applications.

According to Afran, the crux of the issue is that the NDAA “is still  unconstitutional because it allows citizens or persons in the U.S. to be held in  military custody, a position that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held is  unconstitutional.”

Did I forget anything or miss any errors? Would you like to make me aware of  a story or subject to cover? Or perhaps you want to bring your writing to a  wider audience? Feel free to contact me at admin@EndtheLie.com with your concerns, tips, questions, original writings, insults or just  about anything that may strike your fancy

Madison Ruppert is the Editor and Owner-Operator of the alternative news and analysis database End The Lie and has no affiliation with any NGO, political party, economic school, or other organization/cause. He is available for podcast and radio interviews. Madison also now has his own radio show on UCYTV http://UCY.TV Monday nights 7 PM – 9 PM PT/10 PM – 12 AM ET.  Show page link here:  http://UCY.TV/EndtheLie. If you have questions, comments, or corrections feel free to contact him at admin@EndtheLie.com

More at EndtheLie.com

 

[mailpoet_form id="1"]

About The Author

Wendy Blanks is an independent researcher, journalist and activist. She is the Founder of TruWire Productions, LLC., and the Owner/Chief Editor for The Sleuth Journal. She has done investigative research in multiple fields and has a passion for sharing true news on various topics such as government corruption, natural health, human rights, globalism and other important issues that plague our society. Thankfully, we live in the age of information and sharing knowledge has become easier than ever. She has a deep desire to expose the truth in propagated information that is spewed from corporate/mainstream media. True journalism has been dead for some time and it is her goal to revive it. The Sleuth Journal streamlines groups of like-minded individuals and organizations to create a massive knowledge base for a ‘conscious awakening’ of what is really going on in today’s oligarchy pyramid that we call ‘society’. So many people are zombies by media, television and other means of mass brainwashing and we need to reverse the effects and give people back their minds, and in return, their power and will to change and challenge the system. Like The Sleuth Journal on Facebook. Follow The Sleuth Journal on Twitter. Join The Sleuth Journal group on Linkedin. Be sure to visit Drone Patrol to view and report drone sightings.

Related posts