Later On

A blog written for those whose interests more or less match mine.

California bans NDAA, indefinite detentions

leave a comment »

Good for California, I say. Natasha Lennard reports in Salon:

California Gov. Jerry Brown this week signed a bill in direct defiance of the controversial National Defense Authorization Act provision, which legalizes the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens. The California law, which garnered strong support through the state Legislature, bans any state cooperation with any federal attempts to indefinitely detain individuals.

Under the NDAA, signed twice into law by President Obama, despite empty disavowals of the provision, the U.S. military is permitted to indefinitely detain people on the grounds of “national security” concerns. A lawsuit filed against the president by plaintiffs including Chris Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky aims to quash the provision and is making its way through the appeals circuits — government attorneys defending provision 1021(b)(2) at every turn, while the plaintiffs assert that it constitutes an “erosion of basic principles of law.”

The newly signed California law goes further than simply banning cooperation with the NDAA. It asserts that the state can cooperate with no federal indefinite detention attempts. In this way, the bill covers the concerns expressed by civil liberties advocates that the NDAA provision is merely retroactive legislation to juridically cover the tracks of the U.S. government, which has, according to some, already been indefinitely detaining individuals around the world under the remit of the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) act.

State-level non-cooperation with indefinite detention is largely a symbolic act; after all, the military, under the orders of the executive, carry out such detentions. But California’s bill, along with similar bills that passed in both Virginia and Alaska, reflect important state dissent from egregious federal legislation and hopefully will do some work in reminding the public that the NDAA’s concerning provisions remain on the books.

This sort of thing is what makes me dislike Obama’s record on civil rights. The Affordable Care Act, yes; locking up people indefinitely with no charges, no. I thought the US Constitution, flawed though it is, specifically forbade such things, which are more appropriate to a totalitarian government than a free democracy. Perhaps the government Has Plans.

Written by Leisureguy

4 October 2013 at 10:47 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: