Difference between revisions of "NDAA 2012"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Law template) |
(template and expand) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {{ | + | {{concept |
| + | |type=law | ||
|start=2012 | |start=2012 | ||
|jurisdiction=USA | |jurisdiction=USA | ||
| + | |wikipedia=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012 | ||
| + | |description= | ||
| + | |image=NDAA 2012.jpg | ||
| + | |image_width=380px | ||
}} | }} | ||
| + | ==Challenge by Chris Hedges et al.== | ||
| + | {{FA|Hedges v. Obama}} | ||
| + | [[Chris Hedges]] challenged the contitutionality of this law, allowing [[indefinite detention]] without charge as it does. The legal process worked its way up to the [[US Supreme Court]], who agreed that lacked until Hedges lacked [[legal standing]] to challenge it. i.e. Before it was applied to him personally, he had no right to challenge it - a kind of [[Catch 22]] situation, since if it were applied to him, he could be held incommunicado unable to challenge it. | ||
{{SMWDocs}} | {{SMWDocs}} | ||
{{Stub}} | {{Stub}} | ||
Revision as of 04:20, 18 August 2014
 NDAA 2012    | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Type | law |
| Start | 2012 |
Challenge by Chris Hedges et al.
- Full article: Hedges v. Obama
- Full article: Hedges v. Obama
Chris Hedges challenged the contitutionality of this law, allowing indefinite detention without charge as it does. The legal process worked its way up to the US Supreme Court, who agreed that lacked until Hedges lacked legal standing to challenge it. i.e. Before it was applied to him personally, he had no right to challenge it - a kind of Catch 22 situation, since if it were applied to him, he could be held incommunicado unable to challenge it.
Many thanks to our Patrons who cover ~2/3 of our hosting bill. Please join them if you can.
