{"id":18185,"date":"2013-02-11T13:43:06","date_gmt":"2013-02-11T21:43:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/antiwar.com\/blog\/?p=18185"},"modified":"2013-02-11T13:43:06","modified_gmt":"2013-02-11T21:43:06","slug":"is-obama-already-holding-us-citizens-in-indefinite-detention","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2013\/02\/11\/is-obama-already-holding-us-citizens-in-indefinite-detention\/","title":{"rendered":"Is Obama Already Holding US Citizens in Indefinite Detention?"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Hedges v. Obama<\/em>,\u00a0journalists and academics including Chris Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky, et al. are battling against the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which includes provisions granting the power to indefinitely detain individuals, including US citizens, suspected of allying with or supporting “terrorists.”<\/p>\n

Late last year, Judge\u00a0Katherine B. Forrest\u00a0blocked the government<\/a>\u00a0from enforcing those particular statutes on grounds that they violate Constitutionally guaranteed rights to due process. In response, the Obama administration immediately appealed Forrest\u2019s ruling, asking for an \u201cimmediate stay,\u201d or suspension of the case\u2019s proceedings. When Forrest denied the request, the government went to the Second US Court of Appeals in Manhattan and asked another judge for an emergency stay,\u00a0which Judge Raymond J. Lohier granted.\u00a0The latest appeals court extended the stay<\/a>, undermining Judge Forrest\u2019s ruling that the government should be barred from enforcing the law.<\/p>\n

Consider how panicked the government’s response here was. Following Forrest’s decision, they scrambled to get a hold of\u00a0Lohier at 9:00 AM the following day, and overrule the injunction. Chris Hedges, the lead plaintiff in the case, speculates that this is an indication that the Obama administration is already depriving citizens of due process under the NDAA provisions. The hurried response to Forrest’s decision was done, he says, because the US government might otherwise have been in contempt of court.<\/p>\n