Talk:Indefinite detention

Why Obama signed indefinite detention

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)

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)

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)

External links modified

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)

External links modified

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)

Requested move 6 September 2019

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)

---

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)

• 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)
• 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)

---

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.

updated "United States" section due to Trump DoJ new request?

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)

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)

This article is severely dated. - edit request

Description of suggested change:

I would like to request that the US' and Israel's section be updated. The latter need merely be updated with a passage from the article there linked as "see more" to reflect the continued escalation in the number of "administrative detainees"/"security prisoners". I think a short mention of the change in policy wrt settlers (somewhat recent decision to not use administative detention for settlers) could also be useful, but I won't include that in my request.

For the israel subsection, that could look like this:

−

Israel <div role="note" class="hatnote navigation-not-searchable">Main article: [[:Palestinian prisoners in Israel#Administrative detention|Palestinian prisoners in Israel § Administrative detention]]</div> <div role="note" class="hatnote navigation-not-searchable">Further information: [[:Criticism of Israel]]</div> 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.[15] 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.[16]

+

Israel Main article: <div role="note" class="hatnote navigation-not-searchable">Main article: [[:Palestinian prisoners in Israel#Administrative detention|Palestinian prisoners in Israel § Administrative detention]]</div> <div role="note" class="hatnote navigation-not-searchable">Further information: [[:Criticism of Israel]]</div> <div role="note" class="hatnote navigation-not-searchable">Main article: [[:Administrative detention#Israel|Administrative detention § Israel]]</div> <div role="note" class="hatnote navigation-not-searchable">Further information: [[:Defence (Emergency) Regulations]]</div> 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.[15] 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.[16] In the beginning of February 2024, there were 3,484 Palestinians under administrative detention according to The Times of Israel, citing an article of Haaretz.

Note that the bit inserted at the end is a modified selection from Administrative detention#Israel, which uses the following source (does not show up in the diff apparently): ().

Also please note this is still horribly outdated data. The more current data is still close (higher than) to these numbers (after the prisoner release as part of the october 2025 ceasefire deal, to be clear).

I don't have a specific enough proposal for the US' section, as I don't have a clear picture of the current policy, but one has to assume that it is much different now, given what has been happening in the US recently.

Also obviously, my request is not meant to be taken too precisely. If a better phrasing or more recent data is available (there is, I am just too lazy to do a complete rewrite of the section, and I think this would also be to controversial for an edit request) don't let me stop you from using that instead as this still fixes the issue my request is trying to address. Happy editing,

Slomo666 (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you in advance. I may also come back to this and do it when I have my EC back.

References

Slomo666 (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 20:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I am able to, but not allowed to, as this edit is related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and I have not yet regained my extended confirmed status. I would be violating the rules if I did the edit myself, and I really don’t want to get into any conflicts on this topic again. Anyways, I understand if you’d rather not do this one. I can also come back after I’ve (hopefully successfully) requested EC rights back. Slomo666 (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)