US president Barack Obama signed into law on New Year's Eve a bill that, among other provisions, give the US military broader authority to detain people suspected of being affiliated with terrorists on US soil.
The bill in question is the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It allocates funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also includes "counter-terrorism" provisions which would allow the military to detain anyone on US soil indefinitely, without needing to guarantee a trial.
Both critics and supporters of NDAA say this provision would apply to US citizens; however, the actual text of the bill is phrased less clearly and is ambiguous, according to an analysis by Raha Wala, a lawyer for Human Rights Watch. Wala, however, believes "it’s pretty clear as a general matter that Section 1021 is designed to reach U.S. citizens."
Obama, upon signing the NDAA, said in a statement that he still had "reservations", but decided not to veto it. "The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists," he said.
"[...] Our success against al-Qaeda and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counter terrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world."
'It should chill all of us to our cores'
Republican presidential candidate and Representative from Texas Ron Paul voiced objection to the bill, saying that "[The bill] should chill all of us to our cores." In a telephone message to supporters, Paul said: "The founders wanted to set a high bar for the government to overcome in order to deprive an individual of life or liberty. To lower that bar is to endanger everyone. When the bar is low enough to include political enemies, our descent into totalitarianism is virtually assured.
"The Patriot Act, as bad as its violation against the Fourth Amendment was, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act continues that slip into tyranny, and in fact, accelerates it significantly."
Paul's son Rand, who is serving as a Senator from Kentucky, similarly objected to the legislation.
Other lawmakers on Capitol Hill, however, differed. Lindsay Graham from South Carolina said the broad measures were necessary for national security. "It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next. And when they say, 'I want my lawyer,' you tell them, 'Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.'"
Many human rights groups, however, see NDAA as being a threat to liberties, and unconstitutional. Christopher Anders, of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement: "The sponsors of the bill monkeyed around with a few minor details, but all of the core dangers remain—the bill authorizes the president to order the military to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others found far from any battlefield, even in the United States itself."
Read More >>
Both critics and supporters of NDAA say this provision would apply to US citizens; however, the actual text of the bill is phrased less clearly and is ambiguous, according to an analysis by Raha Wala, a lawyer for Human Rights Watch. Wala, however, believes "it’s pretty clear as a general matter that Section 1021 is designed to reach U.S. citizens."
Obama, upon signing the NDAA, said in a statement that he still had "reservations", but decided not to veto it. "The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists," he said.
"[...] Our success against al-Qaeda and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counter terrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world."
'It should chill all of us to our cores'
Republican presidential candidate and Representative from Texas Ron Paul voiced objection to the bill, saying that "[The bill] should chill all of us to our cores." In a telephone message to supporters, Paul said: "The founders wanted to set a high bar for the government to overcome in order to deprive an individual of life or liberty. To lower that bar is to endanger everyone. When the bar is low enough to include political enemies, our descent into totalitarianism is virtually assured.
"The Patriot Act, as bad as its violation against the Fourth Amendment was, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act continues that slip into tyranny, and in fact, accelerates it significantly."
Paul's son Rand, who is serving as a Senator from Kentucky, similarly objected to the legislation.
Other lawmakers on Capitol Hill, however, differed. Lindsay Graham from South Carolina said the broad measures were necessary for national security. "It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next. And when they say, 'I want my lawyer,' you tell them, 'Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.'"
Many human rights groups, however, see NDAA as being a threat to liberties, and unconstitutional. Christopher Anders, of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement: "The sponsors of the bill monkeyed around with a few minor details, but all of the core dangers remain—the bill authorizes the president to order the military to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others found far from any battlefield, even in the United States itself."
Read More >>
