General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Chris Hedges Responds to NDAA Defeat, "It is a black day for those who care about liberty" [View all]Maedhros
(10,007 posts)other than to say that (like all court rulings) it could be appealed.
The court cites the vagueness of the language of Section 1021 and interprets it to not grant the expanded powers objected to by the plaintiffs. However other legal experts from the ABA and ACLU interpret it the opposite way.
For my own part, I believe that people are focusing only on the potential detention of American citizens and are ignoring the detention of non-citizens. People are under the mistaken assumption that the Constitution grants its rights and protections only to American citizens. This is an incorrect view, IMHO. The Constitution does not grant rights to citizens, it imposes conditions and restrictions on the government. It is wrong to detain anyone indefinitely without due process, American citizen or not. "Because Terrorism" is not a sufficient cause to do so.
I also object to this ruling's use of the tried-and-true dodge which we have seen over and over again: denying standing to non-citizen plaintiffs because they cannot prove that the law may harm them.