BORDERLESS WITH BROOKLYN: NDAA attacks civil rights, disregards constitution

By: Brooklyn Middleton/Assistant Opinion Editor

On December 31, 2011, as President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law, America experienced a collective deja vu; an overreaching, unconstitutional piece of legislation was being enacted a la Bush circa 2001.

Our current President, whose ideology during election time seemed almost antithetical to that of former President George W. Bush’s, signed a law that not only has the potential to threaten constitutional rights, but actively disregards them entirely.

Think—Patriot Act meets limitless, physical detainment.

The most problematic part of the NDAA is that it codifies into law the justification for holding American citizens, domestically and overseas, for an unspecified, indefinite time.

Furthermore, there has been mass confusion evidenced by a myriad of conflicting media reports that this bill does not allow or pertain to the detainment of American citizens.

The American Civil Liberties Union debunks this claim, “Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens.  There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). The military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.”

It is important to point out how flawed it is that there has to be clarification of government legislation.  The law’s language is so inherently confusing that it has to be interpreted by an external third party.

Anthony D. Romero, ACLU’s executive director stated, “President Obama’s action is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law. 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.”

The intentionally vague language of the bill combined with President Obama’s statement that he had “serious reservations” about the legislation make his decision to enact the legislation either perfunctory, cowardly, or intentionally misleading.

If the President, who we believed would bring honesty and illumination to eight years of flat out lies and darkness, has “serious reservations” about this bill, he should have acted as the ultimate commander and demanded revisions.

During the signing of the bill he released a statement, “Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.”

President Obama’s assertion that he does not plan to use the bill during his term illustrates a reluctance to stand by this legislation.

It is unfortunate that President Obama is ignoring the fact that future administrations could capitalize on the civil rights abuses this bill allows for.

Furthermore, his addendum to the bill, that essentially attempts to ease concerns about civil rights violations, is a careless afterthought; this bill needs more explanation than a wordy public relations spin that ultimately says nothing at all.

Email at brooklyn.middleton@fiusm.com.