On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 into law. Big deal, right? I mean, for the past 49 years the president in office has signed the National Defense Authorization Act for that year to specify the budget and expenditures of the U.S. military. It's what they do. It's necessary. So?
Included in this "little" act is Section 1021 on Counterterrorism. Section 1021 includes the authorization to detain indefinitely without trial anyone who "supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces" or anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the United States. These can be detained without trial "until the end of the hostilities" (which, in a war on terrorism, is indefinite). Note, then, that this includes American citizens. That's right. The President has just signed into law an act that authorizes the military to detain anyone, citizen or not, suspected of a "belligerent act" against the U.S. and they don't get a trial and they don't get legal representation and they don't get out.
Some may think that I'm exaggerating. Apparently the President is not among them. He said, "My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens." That is, this law authorizes it, but he won't. This law allows it, but as long as he is in office, he won't. It does not mean that the next one will not. President Obama signed the bill with reservations. I get that. He didn't agree with everything in it. I get that. But he saw that it was dangerous, so it is not merely my exaggeration.
The President signed into law his healthcare plan which required all citizens to buy health insurance. How that could be mandated is unclear to me. The courts will hear those arguments soon. Now he has signed into law a termination of the the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution under certain circumstances. "Oh, don't worry," they tell me. "That won't hold up in court." Maybe. But if "due process" is eliminated, will it even get to court?
What really surprises me most is that I pretty much pay attention to the news. So, why is it that I haven't heard about this until now? Why did something as monumental as the indefinite detainment of U.S. citizens without trial go so quietly into the nightly news? How did that fly under the radar? I'm no conspiracy nut ... but in this case I might be persuaded.
4 comments:
I disagreed with Bush when he did these sorts of things and I disagree with Obama. We agree on this point, my brother.
Was this an addition since Obama, or has it been in the law since 911?
The National Defense Authorization Act gets signed every year (for the past 49 years). It varies based on the budget for the military. It gets modified every time. This new element, however, is brand new to this Act of 2012.
Did his veto pen run out of ink, or is he just too stupid, or, just too politically motivated in another direction to use it? Or perhaps he likes the idea of having carte blanche to arrest and detain as the spirit moves him, but as he is prone to do, pretends he opposes it, like he does abortion and same-sex marriage.
Post a Comment