by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.
A Federal Court recently ruled in favor of the Obama Administration, effectively reinstating the detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The provision gives the president the authority to indefinitely detain anyone (including American citizens), based on a suspicion of involvement with a terrorist group. This ruling overturns the lower District Court decision striking down the provision, as overly broad and violative of equal protection and due process rights.
The recent ruling was made by a U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, comprised of three judges appointed by President Obama. Co-sponsor Senator Carl Levin (D) explained in a December 2011 speech, that;
"The language which precluded the application... to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved... and the administration asked us to remove the language which says U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section. ... It was the administration which asked us to remove the very language the absence of which is now objected to."
Many opponents to the NDAA provision, including groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argue that it violates due process, equal protection and flies in the face of the very Constitution upon which our country is based. Many people question whether or not the age of terrorism in which we are compelled to live in, justifies the effective personification of "Big Brother". Ironically, the USCA ruling characterized the lower District Court's decision as unconstitutional.
A Federal Court recently ruled in favor of the Obama Administration, effectively reinstating the detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The provision gives the president the authority to indefinitely detain anyone (including American citizens), based on a suspicion of involvement with a terrorist group. This ruling overturns the lower District Court decision striking down the provision, as overly broad and violative of equal protection and due process rights.
The recent ruling was made by a U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, comprised of three judges appointed by President Obama. Co-sponsor Senator Carl Levin (D) explained in a December 2011 speech, that;
"The language which precluded the application... to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved... and the administration asked us to remove the language which says U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section. ... It was the administration which asked us to remove the very language the absence of which is now objected to."
Many opponents to the NDAA provision, including groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argue that it violates due process, equal protection and flies in the face of the very Constitution upon which our country is based. Many people question whether or not the age of terrorism in which we are compelled to live in, justifies the effective personification of "Big Brother". Ironically, the USCA ruling characterized the lower District Court's decision as unconstitutional.
RSS Feed
