[Jim Robinson]

Supreme Court rejects hearing on military detention case

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/28/us-usa-court-security-idUSBREA3R0YH20140428

Excerpt:

(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.”

[MHGinTN]

Well, now that posse comitatas (sp?) is obsolete, little barry can just send the troops into any area/region not obeying his edicts and have the offending threats detained until passified don’tchaknow.

[MileHi]

...a law that allows the U.S. military to indefinitely detain people believed to have helped al Qaeda or the Taliban.

So when do they slam the bars shut on Soetoro and witHolder?

[OneWingedShark]

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

The problem is that implicit in the action is the guilt:
That is to say that the detention under the accusation [of Al Queda or Taliban association or support] prevents challenging the accusation.

In essence, this is an end-run around the 6th amendment:

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right […] to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; […]

There is no way to challenge the veracity of the charge and because its detention rather than prosecution they hold that it's all perfectly legit.

[sport]

The thing is, that when they get ready to come for you, you will be helping the Taliban or al Qaeda , whether you did or did not.

[lepton]

Unless the below is inaccurately stated, what exactly is the issue? This doesn’t appear to be a change from longstanding precedent, and doesn’t appear to affect either US citizens or the unaffected:

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 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