indefinite detention

NEW STATE LAW BANS CALIFORNIA FROM COOPERATING WITH FEDS ON INDEFINITE DETENTION

 

 

Sweeping measure also applies to other laws that violate Constitution or state law

By Miriam Raftery

October 7, 2013 (Sacramento) – In a rare show of bipartisanship, Governor Brown has signed into a law a bill that passed the Legislature almost unanimously.  The measure makes California the third state to nullify provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) allowing indefinite detention of citizens.

However California’s law goes farther, banning state cooperation with federal authorities on enforcement of any federal law that violates the U.S. Constitution, the California Constitution or California law.  The bill also prohibits use of state funds for such purposes.

CIVIL LIBERTIES ACTIVISTS, PLAINTIFFS CHEER COURT'S RULING AGAINST INDEFINITE DETENTION

Petition launched urging President Obama not to appeal decision

September 14, 2012 (New York) – On September 12, 2012, Judge Katherine Forrest ruled that the so-called “indefinite detention” provision of the fiscal 2012 National Defense Authorization Act violates the Constitution and issued a permanent injunction against its use. The law would have allowed the military to indefinitely detain civilians -- even Americans -- without charge or trial if they are accused of certain crimes, or even associated with certain criminals.

There are six plaintiffs in the case including writer Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, and the leaker of the Pentagon Papers Daniel Ellsberg.

FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS INDEFINITE DETENTION AFTER JOURNALISTS AND ACTIVISTS FILE SUIT

 

By Miriam Raftery

May 19, 2012 (San Diego’s East County) – A federal judge has ruled that section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 is unconstitutional, violating the First Amendment of the Constitution by having a chilling effect on free speech.

The clause allowed the U.S. military to arrest and indefinitely detain anyone—even U.S. citizens—for providing substantial support to terrorist groups.  Civil libertarians opposed the clause and journalists filed suit, arguing that the definition was so vague that reporters and political activists feared they could be indefinitely detained.