Indefinite detention

Indefinite detention, termed by Wikipedia as "controversial", breaches a multitude of national and international laws, including human rights laws.^[1] In recent years, national governments have begun removing legal obstacles to indefinite detention, often beginning first with low status minorities such as immigrants or alleged terrorists.

Australia

In 1994, indefinite detention was introduced to Australia, removing an earlier 273 day limit on Vietnamese, Chinese, and Cambodian refugees. Previous laws had also allowed for the indefinite detention of specified people.^[2] In 2004, Australia's high court ruled in the case Al-Kateb v Godwin that the indefinite detention of a stateless person is lawful. All states and territories (except New South Wales) allow for indefinite detention of violent or sexual offenders who are considered unacceptably likely to reoffend.^[2]

Malaysia

The Internal Security Act an act enforced since 1960 is a preventive detention law enforced in Malaysia which allows indefinite detention without trial for 2 years and further extension as needed.

Singapore

In Singapore, the Internal Security Act allows the government to arrest and indefinitely detain individuals whom the government deems pose a threat to "national security".^[3]

Switzerland

In Switzerland, local laws related to 'dangerousness' can be evoked to incarcerate persons without charge. The highest profile case was Egyptian refugee Mohamed El Ghanem, who was indefinitely detained after refusing to work as an informant for Swiss police.

United Kingdom

In 2004, the House of Lords ruled that indefinite detention violates the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights.^[1] In fact, within the three provisions of the Magna Carta which are still in effect, indefinite detention is forbidden. However, in 2006 the government passed a law allowing for indefinite detention, and many immigrants have been are being detained indefinitely for years as a result.^[4]

United States

Regarding U.S. Citizens accused of supporting terrorism, senator Lindsey Graham has stated before the senate, "When they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them: ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer. You are an enemy combatant, and we are going to talk to you about why you joined Al Qaeda.’"

– U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, 2011^[5]

In the United States, indefinite detention has been publicly admitted as regards so-called "terror suspects".^[6] According to the American Civil Liberties Union, section 412 of the USA PATRIOT act permits indefinite detention of immigrants;^[7] one of the most highly publicized cases has been that of Jose Padilla,^[8] whose ultimate prosecution and conviction in the United States have also been highly controversial.^[9] The International Red Cross has criticized the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.^[10]

On December 5, 2008, the United States Supreme Court claimed that it would rule on the legality of indefinite detention.^[11] On November 29, 2011, the United States Senate rejected a proposed amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 ("NDAA") that would have banned indefinite detention by the United States government of its own citizens,^[5] leading to criticism that Habeas corpus in the United States has been undermined.^[12]^[13] Congress and Senate approved the National Defense Authorization Act in December 2011 and President Barack Obama signed it December 31, 2011.^[14] The new indefinite detention provision of the law was decried as a "historic assault on American liberty."^[15] The American Civil Liberties Union stated that "President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law."^[16] On May 16, 2012, in response to a lawsuit filed by journalist Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Wolf and others,^[17] United States District Judge Katherine B. Forrest ruled the indefinite detention section of the law (1021) likely violates the 1st and 5th Amendments and issued a preliminary injunction preventing the US government from enforcing it.^[18]^[19]^[20]^[21]^[22]