SCBIA CENTRAL

This forum is to present facts to the public that they may be unaware of. Here they can engage in intellectual dialogue with the developer, members, and those who visit. Seeking more KNOWLEDGE and TRUTH!!!


    INDEFINITE DETENTION . PROBLEM

    Share

    Lovelace777

    Posts : 16
    Join date : 2012-12-19
    Age : 33

    INDEFINITE DETENTION . PROBLEM

    Post  Lovelace777 on Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:35 pm

    • affraid Evil or Very Mad Indefinite detention

      Indefinite detention is the incarceration of an arrested person by a national government or law enforcement agency without a trial. It is a controversial practice on the part of any government or agency that is in violation of many national and international laws, including human rights laws.[1] In recent years, governments have indefinitely held those suspected to be involved in terrorism, declaring them as enemy combatants.


      In the United States the phrase "enemy combatant" was used after the September 11 attacks by the George W. Bush administration to include an alleged member of al Qaeda or the Taliban being held in detention by the U.S. government as part of the war on terror. In this sense, "enemy combatant" actually refers to persons the United States regards as unlawful combatants, a category of persons who do not qualify for prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions. Thus, the term "enemy combatant" has to be read in context to determine whether it means any combatant belonging to an enemy state, whether lawful or unlawful, or if it means an alleged member of al Qaeda or of the Talibanbeing detained as an unlawful combatant by the United States.In the United States on March 13, 2009 the Obama administration announced its cyclops abandonment of the Bush administration's use of the term "enemy combatant". sunny


      On January 22, 2009, President Barack Obama signed an order to suspend the proceedings of the Guantanamo military commission for 120 days and that the detention facility would be shut down within the year.[9][10] On January 29, 2009, a military judge at Guantanamo rejected the White House request in the case of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, creating an unexpected challenge for the administration as it reviews how America puts Guantanamo detainees on trial farao

      The Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a controversial detainment and interrogation facility of the United Statesmilitary located within Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba. The facility was established in 2002 by the Bush Administration to hold detainees believed to be connected with the war in Afghanistan and later Iraq. It is operated by theJoint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO) of the United States government in Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, which is on the shore of Guantánamo Bay.[1] The detainment areas consist of three camps: Camp Delta (which includes Camp Echo), Camp Iguana, and Camp X-Ray, but Camp X-Ray has been closed. The facility is often referred to as Guantánamo,G-Bay or Gitmo, after GTMO, the military abbreviation for the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.


      In April 2011, Wikileaks began publishing 779 secret files relating to prisoners in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.[19] As of September 2012, 167 detainees remain at Guantanamo.[20][21][22] rabbit

      The documents, according to media reports, reveal that over 150 innocent Afghans and Pakistanis, including farmers, chefs, and drivers, were held for years without charge.[3][4][5] The documents also reveal that some of the prison's youngest and oldest detainees, which include Mohammed Sadiq, an 89-year-old man, and Naqib Ullah, a 14-year-old boy, suffered from fragile mental and physical conditions.[6] They also contain statements from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessing to interrogators that al-Qaeda possesses nuclear capacity.[7][3]




      THIS BRINGS US TO THE. NEW. LAW BEING DEBATED IN WASHINGTON ) WHICH I BELIEVE IS AN EXPANSION OF INDEFINITE DETENTION WHICH WAS ONCE JUST FOR FOREIGNERS + EASY WAY TO SHIFT BLAME WITHOUT PROOF OR JUST CAUSE. AND MUNIPULATE , TORTURE A BEING INTO FALSE CONFESSIONS)




      Addressing previous conflicts with the Obama Administration regarding the wording of the Senate text, the Senate-House compromise text, in sub-section 1021(d), also affirms that nothing in the Act "is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force". The final version of the bill also provides, in sub-section(e), that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." As reflected in Senate debate over the bill, there is a great deal of controversy over the status of existing law.[17]An amendment to the Act that would have replaced current text with a requirement for executive clarification of detention authorities was rejected by the Senate.[23] According to Senator Levin, "the language which precluded the application of section 1031 to American Citizens was in the bill that we originally approved in the Armed Services Committee and the Administration asked us to remove the language which says that US Citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section".[24] The Senator refers to section 1021 as "1031" because it was section 1031 at the time of his speaking.

      States calling for ban on indefinite detention

      Nine states have introduced bills aiming to adjust or repeal the detainment provisions of the 2012 NDAA.[25] In June, Rhode Island passed a resolution calling on Congress to repeal Sections 1021 and 1022.[26] In mid June, Michiganbegan considering a block against any state cooperation with federal officials who wish to detain Americans under sections 1021 and 1022.[27] The bill passed unanimously on December 5, 2012.[28][29] In July, the Clark County Republican Party Central Committee of Nevada unanimously passed a resolution denouncing the 2012 NDAA, and requesting the Sheriff act against it immediately. The group called sections 1021 and 1022 “blatant attacks on the United States Constitution, specifically Amendments 4, 5, 6, and 8 of our Bill of Rights”.[30]



      HideLegal challenges to indefinite detention

      Main article: Hedges v. ObamaA lawsuit was filed January 13, 2012 against the Obama Administration and Members of the U.S. Congress by a group including former New York Times reporter Christopher Hedges challenging the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012[55] The plaintiffs contend that Section 1021(b)(2) of the law allows for detention of citizens and permanent residents taken into custody in the U.S. on “suspicion of providing substantial support” to groups engaged in hostilities against the U.S. such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban.[55]In May 2012, a federal court in New York issued a preliminary injunction which temporarily blocked the indefinite detention powers of the NDAA (section 1021(b)(2)) on the grounds of unconstitutionality.[67] On August 6, 2012 federal prosecutors representing President Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta filed a notice of appeal with the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals hoping to eliminate the ban.[68][69] The following day arguments from both sides were heard by U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest during a hearing to determine whether to make her preliminary injunction permanent or not.[70] On September 12, 2012, Judge Forrest issued a permanent injunction[71], but this was appealed by the Obama Administration on September 13, 2012.[55][56] A federal appeals court granted a U.S. Justice Department’s request for an interim stay of the permanent injunction, pending the Second Circuit’s consideration of the government’s motion to stay the injunction throughout its appeal.[72][73][74] The court also said that a Second Circuit motions panel will take up the government’s motion for stay pending appeal on September 28, 2012.[72][73][74] On October 2nd, 2012, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the ban on indefinite detention will not go into effect until a decision on the Obama Administration's appeal is rendered.[75][76] The U.S. Supreme Court refused on December 14, 2012 to lift the stay pending appeal order issued by the the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals on October 2, 2012.[77]
    avatar
    Raspy Rawls
    Admin

    Posts : 132
    Join date : 2012-12-18
    Age : 38
    Location : Louisiana

    Re: INDEFINITE DETENTION . PROBLEM

    Post  Raspy Rawls on Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:03 pm

    This the shyt that gets me with his supporters. How can you support him when you see his administration are appealing the ruling that they cant detain us like that. They continued to appeal as I see from your research. Why would they continue if they have no intention of using the law. Great post tho! I really can use this in this info war!!!


    _________________
    IF YOU GONNA LEAD, LEAD BY EXAMPLE afro
    avatar
    hinesmama

    Posts : 26
    Join date : 2012-12-20

    Re: INDEFINITE DETENTION . PROBLEM

    Post  hinesmama on Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:11 pm

    Raspy Rawls wrote:This the shyt that gets me with his supporters. How can you support him when you see his administration are appealing the ruling that they cant detain us like that. They continued to appeal as I see from your research. Why would they continue if they have no intention of using the law. Great post tho! I really can use this in this info war!!!


    Its an ever-developing story with this law. We have yet to see the full scale of how it will be used. No doubts they are setting the stage for justified "legal" actions against who knows, civilians, "terrorists" , etc when the time comes. It will be grand.

    Sponsored content

    Re: INDEFINITE DETENTION . PROBLEM

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:09 pm