The National Defense Authorization Act

Tram Law · Jun 16, 2014

This is a bill that has recently been passed. It has been criticized as a failure of human rights because of these sections:

It is sections 1021 and 1022 that human rights organizations have in mind when they say that the NDAA enshrines indefinite detention without charge into US law.

Section 1021 purports to affirm the militarys authority to hold people in indefinite detention without charge pursuant to the AUMF. Although the original House version of the bill would have stated explicitly that the US continues to be in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated groups, the final version of the bill is somewhat more circumspect.

Section 1022 takes a subset of the persons possibly subject to military detention under section 1021focusing essentially on persons with a stronger connection to terrorismand creates a presumption that they will be held in military detention.

The bad news is that, as passed, sections 1021 and 1022 represent clear congressional approval of what, up to now, has been solely the executive branchs decision to hold people in indefinite detention without charge. (Remember that the AUMF itself was silent on detention questions.) Giving the practice a firm and explicit statutory grounding not only makes it less vulnerable to legal challenge, it may well make the practice more permanent.

The good news, to the extent there is any, is that neither section 1021 nor section 1022 defines the war or the hostilities at issue. They do not, in other words, explicitly embrace the global war on terror paradigm that equates terrorism with armed conflict and suspected terrorists with enemy soldiers. By failing to address that question, they leave open the theoretical (if unlikely) possibility that a court could give the statute a narrow reading consistent with international law understandings of armed conflict.

Yet even this qualified success should be further qualified. First, some of the people explicitly covered by section 1021who, for example, harbored persons responsible for the September 11 attacksmight have no meaningful link to armed conflict. More importantly, the focus of section 1022 is clearly terrorism, not armed conflict: it covers Al Qaeda members and members of groups that act in coordination with or under the direction of Al Qaeda. Although the people subject to presumptive military detention under section 1022 are supposed to be a subset of the larger group of people covered by section 1021, which includes a requirement of a nexus to armed conflict under its subsection (b)(2), the thrust of the provision is still to equate armed conflict with terrorism.
- See more at: http://verdict.justia.com/2011/12/2...horization-act-explained#sthash.gvY1EWvF.dpuf
Click to expand...

The article is in two parts and is somewhat long, but anybody who is concerned about human rights should read it:

http://verdict.justia.com/2011/12/21/the-national-defense-authorization-act-explained

Right now I don't know enough about this so I haven't really have formed an opinion yet. I will wait until I learn more about it, but it is a huge bill of almost one thousand pages long.

Still, I don't understand why our government wants to do this to us. They keep on giving us bills like this. This is why I have no faith in government any more. This is why I don't believe that our political leaders don't care about the constitution any more.

And these kinds of bills are why they do things in closed sessions.

Ronstar · Jun 16, 2014

we pass a new NDAA every year.

Tram Law · Jun 16, 2014

Ronstar said: ↑

we pass a new NDAA every year.
Click to expand...

I know that much at least. So? Does that make this right?

TCassa89 · Jun 16, 2014

Ronstar said: ↑

we pass a new NDAA every year.
Click to expand...

but we didn't always include the jurisdiction which allows the federal government to detain US citizen indefinitely without trial

My Fing ID · Jun 16, 2014

TCassa89 said: ↑

but we didn't always include the jurisdiction which allows the federal government to detain US citizen indefinitely without trial
Click to expand...

Have for a little while though. It needs to go away. Unfortunately I don't see any of our politicians doing anything about it.

Log in or Sign up

The National Defense Authorization Act

Tram Law Banned

Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

Tram Law Banned

TCassa89 Well-Known Member

My Fing ID Well-Known Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

The National Defense Authorization Act

Tram Law Banned

Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

Tram Law Banned

TCassa89 Well-Known Member

My Fing ID Well-Known Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Useful Searches