imported>Asamboi: /* Singapore */ well-known case of very long detention, plus link to main ISA article

2025-03-31T07:02:37Z

Singapore: well-known case of very long detention, plus link to main ISA article

New page

{{short description|Incarceration without a trial}}
'''Indefinite detention''' is the [[incarceration]] of an [[arrest]]ed person by a national [[government]] or [[law enforcement agency]] for an indefinite amount of time without a [[trial]]. The [[Human Rights Watch]] considers this practice as violating national and [[international law]]s, particularly [[human rights]] laws, although it remains in legislation in various [[liberal democracies]].<ref name="hrw.org">{{Cite web|url=https://www.hrw.org/news/2004/12/15/uk-law-lords-rule-indefinite-detention-breaches-human-rights|title=U.K.: Law Lords Rule Indefinite Detention Breaches Human Rights|date=2004-12-15|website=Human Rights Watch|language=en|access-date=2019-06-19}}</ref>

In recent years, governments have indefinitely incarcerated individuals suspected of [[terrorism]], often in [[black site]]s, sometimes declaring them [[enemy combatant]]s – a notable example being the [[Guantanamo Bay detention camp]].<ref name="Department of Justice Withdraws Definition for Guantanamo">{{cite web|last=Department of Justice|first=Office of Public Affairs|title=Department of Justice Withdraws "Enemy Combatant" Definition for Guantanamo Detainees [Press Release]|url=https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/March/09-ag-232.html|work=Justice News|date=13 March 2009 |publisher=Department of Justice|access-date=21 April 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130413010429/http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/March/09-ag-232.html|archive-date=2013-04-13|url-status=live}}</ref> Formalized forms of indefinite detention also exist in some countries around the world in the form of government-mandated [[administrative detention]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/migration/taskforce/docs/administrativedetentionrev5.pdf|title=ADMINISTRATIVE DETENTION OF MIGRANTS, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights}}</ref>
{{TOC right}}

==Views by country==
While laws that allow indefinite detention are present in many countries, including liberal democracies, [[human rights group]]s hold unfavorable views towards the practice.<ref name="hrw.org" /><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/08/un-body-condemns-australia-for-illegal-detention-of-asylum-seekers-and-refugees|title=UN body condemns Australia for illegal detention of asylum seekers and refugees|last=Doherty|first=Ben|date=2018-07-07|work=The Guardian|access-date=2019-08-23|language=en-GB|issn=0261-3077}}</ref>

===Australia===
{{Main|Immigration detention in Australia}}
In Australia, indefinite detention is unlawful and violates the ''[[Constitution of Australia|Constitution]]''.<ref name=":0">{{Cite news |last=Karp |first=Paul |date=2023-11-08 |title=Indefinite immigration detention ruled unlawful in landmark Australian high court decision |url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/nov/08/australia-high-court-indefinite-detention-ruling-government |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241219085720/https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/nov/08/australia-high-court-indefinite-detention-ruling-government |access-date=2024-12-19 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077|archive-date=19 December 2024 }}</ref>

In 1992, in the case of ''Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration,'' the [[High Court of Australia]] ruled that detention by the government can only be used to punish crimes.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law |date=August 2018 |title=Casenote Chu Kheng Lim and Others v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1992) 176 CLR 1 |url=https://www.unsw.edu.au/content/dam/pdfs/unsw-adobe-websites/kaldor-centre/2023-09-case-notes/2023-09-Casenote_Chu-Kheng-Lim-final.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241219084825/https://www.unsw.edu.au/content/dam/pdfs/unsw-adobe-websites/kaldor-centre/2023-09-case-notes/2023-09-Casenote_Chu-Kheng-Lim-final.pdf |archive-date=19 December 2024 |access-date=19 December 2024 |website=Kaldor Centre}}</ref> However, it found exceptions for non-citizens and possibly during non-peacetime.

In 1994, indefinite detention was introduced for [[Vietnamese people|Vietnamese]], [[Chinese people|Chinese]], and [[Cambodian people|Cambodian]] [[refugee]]s; previous laws had imposed a 273-day limit.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/Detention|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130420151736/http://aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/Detention|url-status=dead|archive-date=April 20, 2013|title=Immigration detention in Australia|last=corporateName=Commonwealth Parliament; address=Parliament House|first=Canberra|website=www.aph.gov.au|language=en-AU|access-date=2019-11-21}}</ref> The constitutional validity of this was challenged in the 2004 case of ''[[Al-Kateb v Godwin]]''. It found that the indefinite detention of a [[statelessness|stateless person]] is lawful.<ref name="Al-Kateb v Godwin">{{Cite AustLII|HCA|37|2004|litigants=[[Al-Kateb v Godwin]] |parallelcite=(2004) 219 [[Commonwealth Law Reports|CLR]] 562 |courtname=auto}}.</ref> In 2023, this position was overruled in the case of ''[[NZYQ v Minister for Immigration]]''.<ref name=":0" /> Instead, the High Court of Australia held that the indefinite detention of stateless persons is unlawful. Detention prior to deportation is only permitted when there are real prospects of successful deportation.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-11-29 |title=Explainer: High Court ruling in NZYQ |url=https://www.hrlc.org.au/reports-news-commentary/2023/11/29/explainer-high-court-ruling-in-nzyq |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241101212937/https://www.hrlc.org.au/reports-news-commentary/2023/11/29/explainer-high-court-ruling-in-nzyq |archive-date=2024-11-01 |access-date=2024-12-19 |website=Human Rights Law Centre |language=en-AU}}</ref>

===China===
Human rights groups claim a history of [[penal labour|forced labour]], [[arbitrary arrest and detention|arbitrary arrest, and detention]] of minority groups, including [[Persecution of Falun Gong|Falun Gong members]], [[Human rights in Tibet|Tibetans]], [[Xinjiang conflict|Muslim minorities]], [[List of Chinese dissidents|political prisoners]] and other groups in the People's Republic of China.<ref>{{cite web |title=Tibetan Repression |date=4 February 2016 |url=https://newint.org/features/web-exclusive/2016/02/04/chinas-oppression-of-tibetans-has-dramatically-increased}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Tibetan Indefinite detention and human rights abuse |chapter=China: Events of 2018 |date=28 December 2018 |chapter-url=https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/china-and-tibet}}</ref> Notably, since at least 2017, more than one million [[Uyghurs]] and other minorities have been overwhelmingly [[Arbitrary arrest and detention|detained without trial]] for the purposes of a "[[Strike Hard Campaign Against Violent Terrorism|people's war on terror]]".<ref>{{cite web |title=Uyghur arbitrary arrest and detention |website=[[TheGuardian.com]]|date=11 January 2019 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/11/if-you-enter-a-camp-you-never-come-out-inside-chinas-war-on-islam}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Uyghur Forced Labour |website=[[The New York Times]]|date=16 December 2018 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/16/world/asia/xinjiang-china-forced-labor-camps-uighurs.html|last1=Buckley |first1=Chris |last2=Ramzy |first2=Austin }}</ref> In the case of the Falun Gong in particular, there have been claims of extraordinary abuses of human rights in [[List of concentration and internment camps#People's Republic of China|concentration camps]], including [[Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China|organ harvesting]] and systematic torture.<ref>{{cite web |title=Falun Gong Organ Harvesting |website=[[TheGuardian.com]]|date=17 June 2019 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/17/china-is-harvesting-organs-from-detainees-uk-tribunal-concludes}}</ref>

===Israel===
{{Main|Palestinian prisoners in Israel#Administrative detention}}
{{Further|Criticism of Israel}}
It was reported in July 2016 by [[Haaretz]] that 651 Palestinians were in Israeli jails without having been given due process, and that the number of Palestinians being detained in Israel without trial was on the rise.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-number-of-palestinians-detained-in-israel-without-trial-sees-sharp-rise-1.5416131 |title=Number of Palestinians Detained in Israel Without Trial Sees Sharp Rise |author=Amira Hass |author-link=Amira Hass |date=28 July 2016 |publisher=[[Haaretz]]}}</ref> In October 2021, it was reported that Israel's Police Commissioner, [[Kobi Shabtai]], was personally pushing for the use of detentions without trial, or "administrative detentions," by the [[Shin Bet]] security service to police Israel’s Arab communities.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-could-use-arrests-without-trial-in-bid-to-stem-arab-crime-reports/ |title=Israel could use detention without trial in bid to stem Arab crime |publisher=[[The Times of Israel]] |date=10 October 2021 |author=TOI staff}}</ref>

===Malaysia===
The [[Internal Security Act (Malaysia)|Internal Security Act]], enacted in 1960, allowed indefinite detention without trial for two years, with further extensions as needed. It was repealed in 2012 amid public pressure for [[political reform]]. The [[Prevention of Terrorism Act (Malaysia)|Prevention of Terrorism Act]] (POTA) was introduced in March 2015 after a series of terrorist acts were committed in Malaysia. POTA allows authorities to detain terrorism suspects without trial but stipulates that no person is to be arrested for their [[Ideology#Political ideologies|political belief]]s or [[politics|activities]].<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/07/malaysia-passes-tough-new-terrorism-law-raising-human-rights-fears|title=Malaysia passes new detention without trial law, raising human rights fears|agency=Agence France-Presse|date=2015-04-07|work=The Guardian|access-date=2019-06-19|language=en-GB|issn=0261-3077}}</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-07/malaysia-passes-anti-terrorism-law-to-counter-islamic-state-risk|work=Bloomberg|first=Ranjeetha|last=Pakiam|title=Malaysia Resumes Detention Without Trial With Anti-Terrorism Law|date=7 April 2015}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2015/04/07/anti-terrorism-bill-passed-in-parliament-after-long-debate/|title=Anti-terrorism Bill passed in Parliament after long debate - Nation {{!}} The Star Online|last1=Sivan|first1=Hemananthani|last2=am|website=www.thestar.com.my|access-date=2019-06-19|last3=Carvalho|first3=Martin|last4=Cheah|first4=Christine|date=7 April 2015 }}</ref>

===Singapore===
{{main|Internal Security Act (Singapore)}}

In [[Singapore]], the [[Internal Security Act (Singapore)|Internal Security Act]] allows the government to arrest and indefinitely detain individuals who pose a threat to [[national security]]. It is often used in the context of [[terrorism]], particularly when concerning individuals who are about to engage in [[Islamic terrorism]] or hold [[Islamic extremist]] views.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_retrieve.pl?actno=REVED-143 |title=Archived copy |access-date=2009-03-04 |archive-date=2009-01-21 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090121143425/http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_retrieve.pl?actno=REVED-143 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Opposition politician [[Chia Thye Poh]] was held under the Internal Security Act for 23 years from 1966 to 1989, followed by 9 more years of house arrest until 1997, for a total of 32 years without trial or charge.<ref name = mutalib>{{cite book | author = Hussin Mutalib | year = 2003 | title = Parties and Politics: A Study of Opposition Parties and the PAP in Singapore | isbn = 981-210-211-6 | pages = 70, 106–107 | publisher = Eastern Universities Press | location = Singapore}}</ref>

===Switzerland===
In [[Switzerland]], local laws related to 'dangerousness' can be invoked to incarcerate persons without charge. This was controversially effected in the case of [[Egyptian people|Egyptian]] refugee [[Mohamed El Ghanem]], who was detained without trial for years for refusing to spy on Muslim community leaders in [[Geneva]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-jailed-in-geneva-the-colonel-who-stood-up-against-mubarak-but-refused-to-spy-for-the-7469072.html|title=Robert Fisk: Jailed in Geneva – the colonel who stood up against|date=2012-03-02|website=The Independent|language=en|access-date=2019-11-21}}</ref>

===Thailand===
[[Arnon Nampa]] was detained without trial in 2020 for 6 days, but after Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-o-cha declared to use all laws, including lese majeste, against the protesters in November 2020. He had been detained for 110 days in the first round of remanding. Since 2023, Arnon Nampa has been serving a four year prison sentence.<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Bloomberg |first=Pathom Sangwongwanich / |date=2023-09-26 |title=Thai Protest Leader Sentenced to Four Years in Prison for Royal Insult |url=https://time.com/6317402/arnon-nampa-thailand-protest-lese-majeste-sentence/ |access-date=2024-07-27 |magazine=TIME |language=en}}</ref>

===United Kingdom===
In 2004, the [[House of Lords]] ruled that indefinite detention of foreign terrorism [[suspect]]s under Section 23 of the [[Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001]] violated the [[Human Rights Act 1998|Human Rights Act]] and the [[European Convention on Human Rights]].<ref name="hrw.org"/> Under Schedule 8 of the [[Terrorism Act 2000]], the detention of a terrorism suspect may be prolonged upon application of a [[warrant (law)|warrant]] for further detention by a [[Crown prosecutor]] (in [[England]] and [[Wales]]), the [[Director of Public Prosecutions]] (in [[Northern Ireland]]), the [[Lord Advocate]] or [[procurator fiscal]] (in [[Scotland]]), or a [[police superintendent]] (in any part of the [[United Kingdom]]).<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/8/part/III/data.htm|title=Terrorism Act 2000|website=www.legislation.gov.uk|access-date=2019-06-19}}</ref> The [[Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022]] also allows for indefinite detention as a maximum penalty.

===United States===
In the [[United States]], indefinite detention has been used to hold [[terrorism|terror suspects]] during the [[War on Terror]]. According to the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] (ACLU), Section 412 of the [[Patriot Act]] permits indefinite detention of [[immigrant]]s,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.aclu.org/other/how-anti-terrorism-bill-permits-indefinite-detention-immigrants|title=How the Anti-Terrorism Bill Permits Indefinite Detention of Immigrants|website=American Civil Liberties Union|language=en|access-date=2019-06-19}}</ref> one of the most highly [[publicity|publicized]] cases has been that of [[Jose Padilla (prisoner)|Jose Padilla]],<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DzLOLY6SVQUC&q=%22indefinite+detention%22&pg=PA91|title=The Imperial Presidency and the Consequences of 9/11: Lawyers React to the Global War on Terrorism|date=February 2007|publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group|isbn=9781567207088|language=en}}</ref> whose ultimate prosecution and [[conviction]] in the United States have been highly controversial. The indefinite detention of prisoners at [[Guantanamo Bay camp|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]].<ref name=mendez2013>{{cite news|last1=Mendez|first1=Juan|title=Statement of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture at the Expert Meeting on the situation of detainees held at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay |url=http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13859&LangID=E|access-date=21 March 2015|agency=United Nations|publisher=United Nations|date=3 October 2013}}</ref><ref name=hrw20110124>{{cite news|title=US: Prolonged Indefinite Detention Violates International Law Current Detention Practices at Guantanamo Unjustified and Arbitrary|url=https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/01/24/us-prolonged-indefinite-detention-violates-international-law|access-date=21 March 2015|agency=Human Rights Watch|date=24 January 2011}}</ref><ref name=zayas>{{cite journal|last1=Zayas|first1=Alfred|title=Human Rights and Indefinite Detention|journal=International Review of the Red Cross|date=2005|volume=87|issue=857|pages=15–38|doi=10.1017/S1816383100181172|s2cid=145478411|url=http://rcusa.org/uploads/pdfs/irrc_857_Zayas.pdf|access-date=21 March 2015|archive-date=1 May 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150501061218/http://rcusa.org/uploads/pdfs/irrc_857_Zayas.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name=pillay201201>{{cite news|title=UN rights chief speaks out against US failure to close Guantanamo detention facility|url=https://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=41001#.VQ2WoN75j8E|access-date=21 March 2015|date=23 January 2012|quote="It is 10 years since the US Government opened the prison at Guantanamo, and now three years since 22 January 2009, when the President ordered its closure within 12 months," High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay stated in a news release. "Yet the facility continues to exist and individuals remain arbitrarily detained – indefinitely – in clear breach of international law," she added. "Nobody should ever be held for years on end without being tried and convicted, or released." Ms. Pillay voiced disappointment that instead of closing the facility, the US Government has "entrenched" a system of arbitrary detention, with the new National Defense Authorization Act. Signed into law last month, the Act now effectively codifies such indefinite military detention without charge or trial.}}</ref>

On November 29, 2011, the [[United States Senate]] rejected a proposed [[bill (law)|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 [[citizen]]s, leading to criticism that the right of ''[[Habeas corpus in the United States|habeas corpus]]'' had been undermined.<ref>Khaki, Ategah, "Senate Rejects Amendment Banning Indefinite Detention," ''[[ACLU]] Blog of Rights'', 29 November 2011: [https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/NDAA].</ref><ref>Carter, Tom "US Senators back law authorizing indefinite military detention without trial or charge," ''[[World Socialist Web Site]]'', 2 December 2011: [http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/dec2011/sena-d02.shtml].</ref> The [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] and Senate approved the [[National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012|National Defense Authorization Act]] in December 2011, and [[President Barack Obama]] signed it December 31, 2011.<ref>Julie Pace, [http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0101/Obama-signs-defense-bill-despite-serious-reservations Obama signs defense bill despite 'serious reservations'], [[Associated Press]], January 1, 2012.</ref> The new indefinite detention provision of the law was decried as a "historic assault on American [[liberty]]."<ref>Jonathan Turley, [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/02/ndaa-historic-assault-american-liberty?newsfeed=true The NDAA's historic assault on American liberty], [[The Guardian]], January 2, 2012.</ref> 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."<ref>[https://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-bill-law Press release, December 31, 2011] from [[American Civil Liberties Union]].</ref>

On May 16, 2012, in response to a [[lawsuit]] filed by [[journalist]] [[Chris Hedges]], [[Noam Chomsky]], [[Naomi Wolf]] and others,<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/mar/28/helping-chris-hedges-lawsuit-ndaa | location=London | work=The Guardian | title=The reason I'm helping Chris Hedges' lawsuit against the NDAA | date=28 March 2012 | first=Naomi | last=Wolf}}</ref> [[United States District Judge]] [[Katherine B. Forrest]] ruled that the indefinite detention section of the law (1021) likely violates the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First]] and [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifth Amendments]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] and issued a [[preliminary injunction]] preventing the [[U.S. government]] from enforcing it.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=174 |title=Archived copy |access-date=2012-05-17 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160203000135/http://nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=174 |archive-date=2016-02-03 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-16/military-detention-law-blocked-by-new-york-judge.html | work=Bloomberg | first=Bob | last=Van Voris | title=Military Detention Law Blocked by U.S. Judge in New York | date=12 September 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/16/46550.htm |title=Courthouse News Service |access-date=2012-05-29 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120520013640/http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/16/46550.htm |archive-date=2012-05-20 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/16/indefinite-detention-blocked-ndaa-ruling_n_1522654.html | work=Huffington Post | title=Indefinite Detention Provision Blocked | date=16 May 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.salon.com/2012/05/16/federal_court_enjoins_ndaa/singleton/ |title=Federal court enjoins NDAA - Salon.com |access-date=2012-05-29 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120529044801/http://www.salon.com/2012/05/16/federal_court_enjoins_ndaa/singleton/ |archive-date=2012-05-29 }}</ref> In September 2012, the Obama administration called on the federal appeals court to reverse the "dangerous" ruling of the lower court, supporting the plaintiffs in the lawsuit and arguing that the rule was so vague that it could be used against US citizens and journalists.<ref>{{cite magazine |last1=Kravets |first1=David |title=Feds Urge Appeals Court to Overturn 'Dangerous' Indefinite-Detention Ruling |url=https://www.wired.com/2012/09/indefinite-detention-appeal/ |magazine=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]] |access-date=31 January 2020 |date=17 September 2012}}</ref> On July 17, 2013, the [[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit]] struck down the injunction against indefinite detention of U.S. citizens by the [[President of the United States|president]] under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. The appellate court ruled that "plaintiffs lack [[standing (law)|standing]] to seek [[ripeness|pre-enforcement review]] of Section 1021 and vacate the [[permanent injunction]] ruling that the American citizen plaintiffs lack standing because Section 1021 says nothing at all about the President's authority to detain American citizens.<ref>{{cite web |title=Ruling That Struck Down Military Detention Power Rejected |last1=Dolmetsch |first1=Chris |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-07-17/ruling-that-struck-down-military-detention-power-rejected |website=[[Bloomberg News]] |access-date=28 December 2020 |date=17 July 2013}}</ref> The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of the case.<ref>{{cite web |title=Supreme Court rejects hearing on military detention case |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-security-idUSBREA3R0YH20140428 | first=Lawrence | last=Hurley |website=[[Reuters]] |access-date=28 December 2020 |date=28 April 2014}}</ref>

In 2013, the House of Representatives and the Senate<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/ndaa-indefinite-detention-bill-rand-paul_n_2347774.html | work=Huffington Post | title=Why Rand Paul Calls This Bill An 'Abomination' | date=21 December 2012}}</ref> reauthorized the National Defense Authorization Act after amendments to effectively ban indefinite detention of U.S. citizens were defeated in both chambers.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/13/indefinite-detention-americans_n_3437923.html | work=Huffington Post | title=House Vote Preserves Indefinite Detention Of Citizens | date=13 June 2013}}</ref> On December 26, 2013, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.salon.com/2013/12/27/obama_signs_ndaa_2014_indefinite_detention_remains/|title=Obama signs NDAA 2014, indefinite detention remains|date=2013-12-27|website=Salon|language=en|access-date=2019-06-19}}</ref>

==See also==
*[[Administrative detention]]
*[[At His Majesty's pleasure]], a legal term of art in Commonwealth countries which includes the indeterminate sentences of some convicted prisoners
*[[Detention (imprisonment)]]
*[[Habeas corpus]]
*[[Indefinite imprisonment]]
*[[Incapacitation (penology)]]
*[[Lawfare]]
*[[Orwellian]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Indefinite Detention}}
[[Category:Imprisonment and detention]]

Indefinite detention - Revision history

imported>Asamboi: /* Singapore */ well-known case of very long detention, plus link to main ISA article