This article is within the scope of WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Correction and Detention Facilities articles 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.
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.
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.
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.
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)