Talk:Indefinite detention

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Correction and Detention Facilities (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Correction and Detention FacilitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesTemplate:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesCorrection and Detention Facilities articles Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Enforcement Low‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Human rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I think this is a huge question that really needs to be answered on this page. I've heard a couple people wondering what Obama could possibly have traded to give into signing indefinite detention into law. The answer is that it was part of a budget bill, a compromise to the huge mess that Congress has been fighting over for a while. Getting that into encyclopedic wording with appropriate references will take me longer, so feel free. The simplest option might be a few words describing what the National Defense Authorization Act is, after mentioning it's what Obama signed. —Darxus (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything to add on that score yet, but thought I'd ask you to reword the phrase from Turley's blog that was reposted from The Guardian.

The problem is, the phrase you're quoting is "historic assault on American liberty" which is not Turley's words. They're from the caption, which was probably written by an editor at The Guardian. This is a common problem with headlines, so I generally avoid taking anything from them. They're also frequently changed after initially putting them online.

I'm pointing this out here because it's a worthwhile reference. Turley's is an important opinion, and it's better that it be rephrased than removed. But another problem is that it needs attribution in the article because it's an opinion.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at speculation from four or five reliable sources. If two or three reasons are repeated two or three times, put them in there. Don't forget to reference the material. CarolMooreDC 18:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indefinite detention without trial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120520013640/http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/16/46550.htm to http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/16/46550.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indefinite detention without trial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120529044801/http://www.salon.com/2012/05/16/federal_court_enjoins_ndaa/singleton/ to http://www.salon.com/2012/05/16/federal_court_enjoins_ndaa/singleton/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) qedk (t 桜 c) 12:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

The request to rename this article to Indefinite detention has been carried out.

Indefinite detention without trial → Indefinite detention – This was moved from the shorter title without discussion several years ago in order to create the current WP:TWODABS page now at Indefinite detention. Although there are rare instances of a indefinite civil detention following a trial, the overwhelming majority of real world instances and references for use of the phrase involve people detained without a trial. It is the very fact of a trial that changes the nature of the confinement from indefinite detention to either a prison sentence or civil commitment. Furthermore, the other title on the page, Mental Health Act 1983, is not a matching title, and we have no other article with the title, "Indefinite detention". Move this page and quash the unnecessary disambiguation page. bd2412 T 02:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It seems that "Indefinite detention" is the WP:COMMONNAME for the phenomenon described in this article. As for the alternative "Indefinite detention following a trial" concept described in the dab page, maybe if there's enough RS coverage to establish it as a standalone topic, someone can someday write an article about it, or add some information about it to this article. But as it is, the bluelink to Mental Health Act 1983 is so remotely related, it doesn't even seem worth having a hatnote link to it. Colin M (talk) 04:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The term actually used in the MHA 1983 was "custody during Her Majesty's pleasure" - and that section (no. 46) has been repealed. Detention under the current act (MHA 2007) must be reviewed at regular intervals, and is therefore not indefinite.

Hatnote the article to At Her Majesty's pleasure, whose lede mentions "indeterminate sentences of some prisoners". Narky Blert (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Update Indefinite detention § United States ?

Trump's DoJ asked Congress to allow chief judges to detain people indefinitely without trial during emergencies.

In one request, the DoJ asked Congress to give the attorney general (William Barr, implied in ref) and top judges broad powers that would allow them to pause court proceedings during emergencies or “whenever the district court is fully or partially closed by virtue of any natural disaster, civil disobedience, or other emergency situation.” These new powers would apply to “any statutes or rules of procedure otherwise affecting pre-arrest, post-arrest, pre-trial, trial, and post-trial procedures in criminal and juvenile proceedings and all civil process and proceedings.”

The DoJ’s requests are unlikely to make it through a Democratic-led House.

• Betsy Woodruff Swan, DOJ seeks new emergency powers amid coronavirus pandemic; One of the requests to Congress would allow the department to petition a judge to indefinitely detain someone during an emergency. March 21, 2020 Politico.com

X1\ (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More current, from Snopes:

• Bethania Palma Did DOJ Propose Rollback of Defendants’ Rights During Pandemic? Any changes affecting constitutional guarantees afforded federal criminal defendants in the U.S. would ultimately be up to Congress. 24 March 2020

X1\ (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]