Tweet
For 49 years the National Defense Authorization Act was a simple law signed off on by the President to give the Department of Defense the money it needed to get through another 12 months of spending. This year, the Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich) and senior member John McCain (R.-Ariz.) crafted provisions for the bill that many said would erode the 5th Amendment.
Although Obama initially promised to veto any bill containing the Armed Services amendments, he ultimately signed the full package into law on New Year's Eve while vacationing with his family in Hawaii.
So why exactly are people freaking out about this bill?
While it is easy to believe that because most of us aren't terrorists or breaking any laws, that we have no reason to be concerned — we took a close look at the language of the 2012 NDAA amendments to see where exactly the facts lie.
The bottom line is the government can imprison anyone suspected of or even associated with terrorism. This power is open to wide interpretation and could certainly be abused.
After signing the NDAA, Obama released a statement saying "the [NDAA] does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens."
This appears to be untrue. The September 18, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) allows "[T]he President ... to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
The connection between detaining those responsible for 9/11, and imprisoning any "associated force" that acts like the terrorist group, seems unclear.
Although Obama initially promised to veto any bill containing the Armed Services amendments, he ultimately signed the full package into law on New Year's Eve while vacationing with his family in Hawaii.
So why exactly are people freaking out about this bill?
While it is easy to believe that because most of us aren't terrorists or breaking any laws, that we have no reason to be concerned — we took a close look at the language of the 2012 NDAA amendments to see where exactly the facts lie.
- Section 1021 of the NDAA allows the U.S. military to indefinitely detain, without due process, any person engaged in "hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners ... without trial until the end of hostilities."
- Section 1022 expressly states that the military will imprison anyone who is a member of al-Qaeda or "an associated force" that acts like al-Qaeda; and anyone who planned or carried out an attack, or attempted attack, against the U.S.
- Section 1022 continues that detaining American citizens is not required. "UNITED STATES CITIZENS — The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."
The bottom line is the government can imprison anyone suspected of or even associated with terrorism. This power is open to wide interpretation and could certainly be abused.
After signing the NDAA, Obama released a statement saying "the [NDAA] does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens."
This appears to be untrue. The September 18, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) allows "[T]he President ... to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
The connection between detaining those responsible for 9/11, and imprisoning any "associated force" that acts like the terrorist group, seems unclear.
Complete bill can be found here: http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-conten...ee-Section.pdf
I sense that the police-state that this bill implies surely does make obsolete of the Fifth Amendment.
The executive branch has claimed the power to detain and even kill citizens since the 9/11 attacks in 2001 (Guantanamo Bay or Anwar al-Awlaki, anyone?) through the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) resolution. However, this is the first time in recent history that Congress has codified “indefinite detention” into law. And while the AUMF specifically addressed terrorist activities related to the 9/11 attacks, the 2012 NDAA broadens the qualifications to those who “substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces” or persons who “committed” or “supported” a belligerent act against the U.S. or its coalition allies.
It’s a vague provision that rightfully has average Americans panicked and civil rights groups up in arms. The so called “War on Terror” and AUMF has already given the government and military the ability to target civilians (including American citizens) suspected of terrorist activities on U.S. soil and abroad. The NDAA makes the situation even worse by putting Congress’s stamp of approval on the unconstitutional AUMF. Essentially, everyone in this country is now a potential terrorist.
President Obama released a signing statement expressing “reservation” about the bill, but went ahead and signed it anyway. In the statement, he clarified how his administration viewed the NDAA and how the executive agencies will interpret it. Specifically, he stated that his administration would not apply the detention language to U.S. citizens.
But what about future Presidents? How will they and their administration interpret the language of the NDAA? There is no guarantee Obama will be here four years from now, let alone next year. What is to tell us that another President would not apply indefinite detention to U.S. citizens? It is scary to see how much more militarized our government is becoming and how our rights are falling by the wayside in the process.
Instead of signing the NDAA, Obama should have vetoed the bill and reexamined the original AUMF for its serious breach of civil liberties. But clearly, that is asking too much. I just hope the controversy that surrounded the bill in its final days continues to encourage activists to speak out against this blatant disregard for the freedom and democracy our government leaders claim to hold so dear.
It’s a vague provision that rightfully has average Americans panicked and civil rights groups up in arms. The so called “War on Terror” and AUMF has already given the government and military the ability to target civilians (including American citizens) suspected of terrorist activities on U.S. soil and abroad. The NDAA makes the situation even worse by putting Congress’s stamp of approval on the unconstitutional AUMF. Essentially, everyone in this country is now a potential terrorist.
President Obama released a signing statement expressing “reservation” about the bill, but went ahead and signed it anyway. In the statement, he clarified how his administration viewed the NDAA and how the executive agencies will interpret it. Specifically, he stated that his administration would not apply the detention language to U.S. citizens.
But what about future Presidents? How will they and their administration interpret the language of the NDAA? There is no guarantee Obama will be here four years from now, let alone next year. What is to tell us that another President would not apply indefinite detention to U.S. citizens? It is scary to see how much more militarized our government is becoming and how our rights are falling by the wayside in the process.
Instead of signing the NDAA, Obama should have vetoed the bill and reexamined the original AUMF for its serious breach of civil liberties. But clearly, that is asking too much. I just hope the controversy that surrounded the bill in its final days continues to encourage activists to speak out against this blatant disregard for the freedom and democracy our government leaders claim to hold so dear.
" 