Forensics Journal - Stevenson University 2014 | Page 58

FORENSICS JOURNAL

and without due regard for civil liberties. The idea of indefinitely
detaining someone with no legal resources and no immediate end in
sight remains controversial. Nevertheless, this power was ultimately
granted to the President via Article II of the U.S. Constitution, and
the AUMF of 2001.

hensive study of relevant law confirms the legality of its actions. The
current system in place is not flawless, but an unconventional war
calls for unconventional methods. While they may not be widely
accepted, present governmental actions are permissible under this
nation’s current system of laws.

As history demonstrates, and this article discusses, past presidents
have enacted questionable policies, particularly during times of
war. Although these policies are debatable, they are not necessarily
unlawful. In support of the AUMF, the MCAs of 2006 and 2009,
and the NDAAs of 2012 and 2013, have codified the President’s
ability to carry out these actions officially and lawfully. For obvious
reasons, the Founding Fathers maintained that no single branch of
government be granted excessive power. Still, in a system of checksand-balances, all three branches of government have found reason to
believe that these practices are legitimate and necessary. For instance,
the Supreme Court concluded in Hamdi that the President does in
fact have the authority to indefinitely detain individuals, and Congress penned the MCAs and NDAAs that now bear the President’s
signature of approval.

REFERENCES
Al Bihani v. Obama. 590 F.3d 866. District Court of the United
States. 2009. Legal Information Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Jan. 2013.
Al Mutairi v. United States. Civil. Action No. 02-828 (CKK). District
Court of the United States. 2009. Legal Information Institute. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 7 Feb. 2013.
American Civil Liberties Union. Indefinite Detention, Endless Worldwide War and the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. New York:
American Civil Liberties Un [ۋ