Citat:
Har du några källor på det? Någon artikel eller något som förklarar det vidare? Jag har sökt men jag hittar inget som styrker din tes. Såhär skriver bland annat Wikipedia:
Där konstateras det att det går att fängsla någon utan rättegång och mina länkar ovan påvisar att Presidenten kan göra det om det hotar rikets säkerhet.
Detta betyder ju inte att han kan fängsla politiska motståndare, om de inte är "agent of a foreign enitity".
United States[edit]
In the United States, indefinite detention has been used to hold terror suspects during the War on Terror. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), 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. The indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay has been called a violation of international law by the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Human Rights Watch.[9][10][11][12]
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, leading to criticism that Habeas corpus in the United States has been undermined.[13][14] Congress and Senate approved the National Defense Authorization Act in December 2011 and President Barack Obama signed it December 31, 2011.[15] The new indefinite detention provision of the law was decried as a "historic assault on American liberty."[16] The ACLU 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."[17] On May 16, 2012, in response to a lawsuit filed by journalist Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Wolf and others,[18] United States District Judge Katherine B. Forrest ruled the indefinite detention section of the law (1021) likely violates the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and issued a preliminary injunction preventing the U.S. government from enforcing it.[19][20][21][22][23]
In 2013, the House of Representatives[24] and the Senate[25] reauthorized National Defense Authorization Act. The amendments to effectively ban indefinite detention of US Citizens were defeated in both chambers. Moreover, on July 17, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second District struck down an injunction against indefinite detention of U.S. citizens by the president under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.[26] The appellate court ruled: "...Plaintiffs lack standing to seek pre enforcement review of Section 1021 and vacate the permanent injunction. The American citizen plaintiffs lack standing because Section 1021 says nothing at all about the President’s authority to detain American citizens." On December 26, 2013, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014.[27][28] The NDAA provision first signed into law in 2012, which permits indefinite detention without trial, remains in law as of 2017.
In the United States, indefinite detention has been used to hold terror suspects during the War on Terror. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), 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. The indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay has been called a violation of international law by the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Human Rights Watch.[9][10][11][12]
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, leading to criticism that Habeas corpus in the United States has been undermined.[13][14] Congress and Senate approved the National Defense Authorization Act in December 2011 and President Barack Obama signed it December 31, 2011.[15] The new indefinite detention provision of the law was decried as a "historic assault on American liberty."[16] The ACLU 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."[17] On May 16, 2012, in response to a lawsuit filed by journalist Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Wolf and others,[18] United States District Judge Katherine B. Forrest ruled the indefinite detention section of the law (1021) likely violates the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and issued a preliminary injunction preventing the U.S. government from enforcing it.[19][20][21][22][23]
In 2013, the House of Representatives[24] and the Senate[25] reauthorized National Defense Authorization Act. The amendments to effectively ban indefinite detention of US Citizens were defeated in both chambers. Moreover, on July 17, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second District struck down an injunction against indefinite detention of U.S. citizens by the president under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.[26] The appellate court ruled: "...Plaintiffs lack standing to seek pre enforcement review of Section 1021 and vacate the permanent injunction. The American citizen plaintiffs lack standing because Section 1021 says nothing at all about the President’s authority to detain American citizens." On December 26, 2013, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014.[27][28] The NDAA provision first signed into law in 2012, which permits indefinite detention without trial, remains in law as of 2017.
Där konstateras det att det går att fängsla någon utan rättegång och mina länkar ovan påvisar att Presidenten kan göra det om det hotar rikets säkerhet.
Detta betyder ju inte att han kan fängsla politiska motståndare, om de inte är "agent of a foreign enitity".
Skillnad på att fängsla och att hålla någon häktad, du får häkta även här i Sverige men du får inte skippa en rättegång, inte ens i USA och korruption är inte en tillräckligt stor anledning då mutor är lagliga i USA, åtminstone mot politiker
