Indefinite Detention Is Un-American

Today USA Today ran an editorial proclaiming “Indefinite detention is un-American.” We couldn’t agree more. The editorial states:

In the decade since the 9/11 attacks, Congress has been willing to do almost anything to ward off more terrorist strikes. It has given the government broad authority to hunt, hold and try suspected terrorists. Trouble is, the law is written so broadly that the government would have little difficulty applying it to virtually anyone.

The latest example is a provision in the annual defense authorization bill that would allow the U.S. military to detain anyone indefinitely without charges or trial — even U.S. citizens — if the president determines they’re suspected of being terrorists or having aided terrorists.

Soon, the Senate will debate and vote on this year’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), providing an opportunity to revisit the bill signed last December authorizing this president and all future presidents to order the military to put civilians picked up far from any battlefield into indefinite detention without charge or trial, based on suspicion alone. The ACLU believes that indefinite detention without charge or trial in the United States itself would be unconstitutional and illegal, but some powerful senators have urged that the NDAA be used to lock away people even here in the United States itself.

In the weeks ahead, we’ll keep you posted on opportunities for action. Congress needs to hear from you that it’s time to #FixNDAA. In the meantime, please help us spread the word about the danger of the indefinite detention provisions contained within the NDAA by sharing this blog post with your friends and networks. Stay tuned.

Learn more about the NDAA: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

Add a comment (4)
Read the Terms of Use


The idea of a government that started for freedom sake to stray this far from the course is very very troubling to say the least


Regarding the above Ron Paul wants to do away with the corporations diivrng up school costs and most of the other high costs associated with many services to society. He mainly is against the various Departments in the government because they have turned into instruments of protection of corporate interests instead of protecting individual citizen interests.Regarding abortion: Media constantly focuses on his personal anti-abortion beliefs but, he has stated over and over that abortion is a social issue and that the Federal government should stay out of the issue and let the states decide. So, I am generally pro-choice but, I'll support Paul because the worst he would do is just let us make those decisions at the state level.Regarding the Civil Rights Act: He mainly believes that the Act exceeded Federal Authority. He believes that the social progress would have occurred despite the Act. He wasn't against social progress he was against the Federal Government exceeding their Authority in dictating private citizen's lives. He is a Constitutionalist and doesn't support anything that exceeds the powers of the Federal Gov't beyond what the Constitution provides. Some times this can be perceived as good and sometimes as bad.


Never thought I'd support the ACLU. This NDAA thing is serious business however, and I applaud the efforts to educate and organize the citizens of The United States of America.


Agreed. I never thought I'd be siding w/the ACLU either. But considering most media outlets and our own government is more concerned with corporate interest and covering this up. I'm in 100%. If we can't unite on this , we will never unite on anything

Sign Up for Breaking News