The Most Rational Summary of the NDAA

Posted on December 17, 2011 at 3:07 pm by Bob Cesca

Adam Serwer does a nice job of summarizing the National Defense Authorization Act without getting apoplectic about it. To summarize his summary:

1) The bill codifies indefinite detention.

2) The bill does not permit indefinite detention of U.S. citizens.

3) The bill is dangerous.

My view of the bill is closely in line with Serwer’s.

Here’s what can be done at this point.

Contact your senator and ask them to oppose a veto override. Why? Because even if the president were to veto the bill, there are enough Senate votes to override the veto and automatically pass the bill (a presidential veto would be merely symbolic).

The other thing we can work on is to suggest a signing statements for the president to add. If the president declares an end to “hostilities” in a signing statement, then the indefinite detention language becomes moot.

Print Friendly
This entry was posted in Terrorism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • i_a_c

    I agree with the gist of this article, although I’m not quite sold on how dangerous this is. All this stuff that has been codified is legal–The Supreme Court has made it pretty clear it has no problem with detaining Americans citizens as enemy combatants indefinitely without trial, but they do have the right to challenge their detention (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld). The NDAA law makes it clear who can be held indefinitely–members or associates of al Qaeda, the Taliban, or any group plotting or attempting attacks against the United States. This is not a trivial standard which lets the government lock anybody up. It is a step in the wrong direction in that I don’t think we should be holding anyone for the length of hostilities without charges. But I am not really surprised or enraged that the government took powers that the Supreme Court allows it to have.

  • http://www.osborneink.com OsborneInk

    A short signing statement declaring that the law only applies to current hostilities would make the conclusion of operations in Afghanistan the end of this ridiculous business.

  • trgahan

    Question: why are President Obama’s feet being held to the fire so much one this and all the representitives insisting this language stay law get a pass? I get the feeling if it wouldn’t cost them votes, or cause huge “why do you hate america?” screeching; it would have been long gone.

    • villemar

      Presidency Cultists pretty much have taken over on both sides.