Supreme Court refuses to hear case about indefinite detention of American citizens

shane

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
1,191
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/28/us-usa-court-security-idUSBREA3R0YH20140428

(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Barack Obama's administration by declining to hear a challenge to a law that allows the U.S. military to indefinitely detain people believed to have helped al Qaeda or the Taliban.

The high court left intact a July 2013 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that journalists and others who said they could be detained under the law, did not have standing to sue.

The provision in question is part of the National Defense Authorization Act, which the U.S. Congress passes annually to authorize programs of the Defense Department.

It lets the government indefinitely detain people it deems to have "substantially supported" al Qaeda, the Taliban or "associated forces."

Journalists and activists whose work relates to overseas conflicts, including Pulitzer Prize winner Chris Hedges and an Icelandic spokeswoman for the Wikileaks website, said that the law could subject them to being locked up for exercising constitutionally protected rights. They also said the threat of enforcement violated their right to free speech.

In September 2012, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest of New York issued a permanent injunction preventing the United States from invoking the part of the law authorizing indefinite detentions.

The appeals court said the challengers had no standing because they could not show the provision has any bearing on the government's authority to detain U.S. citizens.

The court said the plaintiffs who were not U.S. citizens lacked standing to sue because they did not show "a sufficient threat that the government will detain them" under the provision.

The case is Hedges v. Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-758
This is the worst news for civil liberties imaginable although it shouldn't surprise anyone. The Supreme Court is just as corrupted as Congress or any other Washington D.C. bureaucracy.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,561
I don't know that I agree, Shane.

The Supreme Court did not say that this law was legal. It said that the parties challenging it don't have standing.

No matter how right or wrong an issue is, it's law 101 that any party to a suit has to have standing and these people just don't, yet.

I think if one of them WERE detained, then they'd have standing. Like the detainees at Guantanamo Bay have sued.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
I don't know that I agree, Shane.

The Supreme Court did not say that this law was legal. It said that the parties challenging it don't have standing.

No matter how right or wrong an issue is, it's law 101 that any party to a suit has to have standing and these people just don't, yet.

I think if one of them WERE detained, then they'd have standing. Like the detainees at Guantanamo Bay have sued.
Catch 22. When they are detained, will they be allowed to contact anyone? Or, will they just disappear?
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,561
Catch 22. When they are detained, will they be allowed to contact anyone? Or, will they just disappear?
Well, didn't the Guantanamo Bay detainees sue? They must have contact.

Indefinite detention doesn't mean you are locked in a secret jail away from the light of day. It just means they can hold you without trial. Presumably, they'd still have to be given their other rights (right to an attorney, etc).
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
Well, didn't the Guantanamo Bay detainees sue? They must have contact.

Indefinite detention doesn't mean you are locked in a secret jail away from the light of day. It just means they can hold you without trial. Presumably, they'd still have to be given their other rights (right to an attorney, etc).
Who knows? Every citizen is supposed to have a right to a speedy and fair public trial. If we don't have that right any more, why assume we have any others?
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,700
Who knows? Every citizen is supposed to have a right to a speedy and fair public trial. If we don't have that right any more, why assume we have any others?
But are we talking citizens regarding the detainees at Guantanamo?
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,561
Who knows? Every citizen is supposed to have a right to a speedy and fair public trial. If we don't have that right any more, why assume we have any others?
Because it took a government action to announce to everyone that they can detain you indefinitely.

They haven't announced that they can take away your right to counsel yet.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
53,070
Who knows? Every citizen is supposed to have a right to a speedy and fair public trial. If we don't have that right any more, why assume we have any others?
Well if you don't have a right to a speedy trial who cares about an attorney? They can just hold you indefinitely with no trial date and no bond.

By the way Iamtdg totally approves of this because it makes him feel safer at night.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,700
Well if you don't have a right to a speedy trial who cares about an attorney? They can just hold you indefinitely with no trial date and no bond.

By the way Iamtdg totally approves of this because it makes him feel safer at night.
Is there such a thing as a speedy trial? What I have found in my years of exposure to the legal system is that counsel for both sides stretch out things as long as possible. I won't go into some of the reasons why. I know this is off topic but I saw an opening.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
53,070
Is there such a thing as a speedy trial? What I have found in my years of exposure to the legal system is that counsel for both sides stretch out things as long as possible. I won't go into some of the reasons why. I know this is off topic but I saw an opening.
In Missouri you can file a 180 day writ. Now I don't know if 180 days should really be considered a speedy trial but it's how it works here. When someone is in jail moving things along quickly is advantageous. Many people can't afford the high bonds judges set on cases.

On the other hand if your client is out on bond, why hurry to a trial? He/She already paid the $100,000.00 bond and if they lose at trial they will be looking at DOC potentially. Makes more sense for you to allow them to enjoy the money they spent and hope the community cools off with regards to the alleged crime that was committed. So yeah, if the client is out on bond things can really start to drag out. There are probably some 2010 felony cases sitting out there where I practice criminal law.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,700
In Missouri you can file a 180 day writ. Now I don't know if 180 days should really be considered a speedy trial but it's how it works here. When someone is in jail moving things along quickly is advantageous. Many people can't afford the high bonds judges set on cases.

On the other hand if your client is out on bond, why hurry to a trial? He/She already paid the $100,000.00 bond and if they lose at trial they will be looking at DOC potentially. Makes more sense for you to allow them to enjoy the money they spent and hope the community cools off with regards to the alleged crime that was committed. So yeah, if the client is out on bond things can really start to drag out. There are probably some 2010 felony cases sitting out there where I practice criminal law.
The criminal trial process is one thing but the civil litigation system is a whole different animal as to progress. Criminal trials need to have a booster because of the defendant but often times an overburdened prosecutor's office has to keep tableing because of lack of resources constraints. The civil system often has buddy systems working between council to delay matters for maximum billing but neither wants to go to trial so a long delayed settlement is done that could have been consummated months earlier. I know all matters are not this way but more than are necessary are.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
53,070
The civil system often has buddy systems working between council to delay matters for maximum billing but neither wants to go to trial so a long delayed settlement is done that could have been consummated months earlier. I know all matters are not this way but more than are necessary are.
Depends, if the Plaintiff's attorney is being paid a contingent fee then stringing the case out only hurts the attorney unless there is more money in the end.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,700
Depends, if the Plaintiff's attorney is being paid a contingent fee then stringing the case out only hurts the attorney unless there is more money in the end.
Right. My examples was directed to deep pocket clients. I can say this because my bank was often a client.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,700
When I worked for an agency of the federal government the defendants counsel was working out of an insurance policy.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,700
Not trying to be derogatory about attorneys just giving examples. Again this is off topic.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
53,070
Not trying to be derogatory about attorneys just giving examples. Again this is off topic.
There are definitely plenty of examples of the only people winning in a court case being the attorney's on both sides.
 
Top Bottom