THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT:

THE POWER TO DETAIN INDEFINITELY WITHOUT TRIAL

 

THE BILL

The 2013 National Defense Authorization Act

The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act

 

The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act gave the government the right to detain individuals associated with "terrorist forces" indefinitely without trial:

"Covered persons" would be subject to " Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force." NDAA 2012: Section 1021: Subtitle D, Detainee Matters" (PDF)

THE CONTROVERSIAL INDEFINITE DETENTION CLAUSE

The indefinite detention clause (section 1021) has become the most controversial aspect of the NDAA bill. It has been challenged as a violation of constitutional rights. The ACLU said, "The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield." Basically, this statue claims the authority to detain anyone (on the planet) indefinitely if they are suspected of terrorist activity. The NDAA is also a direct violation of international law because it "is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war (ACLU)."

 

ATTEMPTS TO AMMEND INDEFINITE DETENTION CLAUSE GET SHUT DOWN

In response to the controversial "indefinite detention clause," Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) introduced an amendment in December 2012 that would forbid the government from using military force to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial under the 2013 NDAA. Although the "Feinstein" provision passed unanimously in the senate, a select panel of lawmakers under Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Michigan) stripped the Feinstein amendment from the final bill.

Congress instead added section 1029, which claims that "any person inside the United States" is allowed their constitutional rights, including habeas corpus, yet supporters of the Feinstein amendment say that the swapped wording does not erase the indefinite detention provision from the previous year.

 

THE POWER TO IMPRISON ANYONE ON THE PLANET?

Right now, there is a great amount of argument going on about whether the NDAA has the legal rights to detain American Citizens indefinitely without trial, since the language is still fuzzy on that matter. Yet who is to say that the United States should detain ANY citizen of any country without a trial? Does America really have the right to violate international standards of warfare? Does the United States have the right to detain anyone in the world without a fair trial? There needs to be more debate on this matter, this is a problem that concerns all the world's citizens, not just Americans.

 

RELATED LINKS

Chris Hedges: The NDAA and the Death of the Democratic State (Common Dreams, 2-11-13)

Obama Objects To Whistle blower Protections In NDAA, Surprising Key Backer (Huffington Post, 1-4-13)

NDAA 2013 - Indefinite detention without trial is back (RT, 12-19-12)

Don't Be Fooled by New NDAA Detention Amendment (ACLU, 11-29-12)

NDAA 2013: Congress approves domestic deceptive propaganda (RT, 5-22-12)

The NDAA's historic assault on American liberty (The Guardian, 1-2-12)