Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:06, 5 June 2012

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 was signed into United States law on December 31, 2011, by President Barack Obama.

The Act authorizes $662 billion in funding, among other things "for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad." In a signing statement, President Obama described the Act as addressing national security programs, Department of Defense health care costs, counter-terrorism within the U.S. and abroad, and military modernization. The Act also imposes new economic sanctions against Iran (section 1045), commissions appraisals of the military capabilities of countries such as Iran, China, and Russia, and refocuses the strategic goals of NATO towards "energy security."

The most controversial provisions to receive wide attention are contained in Title X, Subtitle D, entitled "Counter-Terrorism." In particular, sub-sections 1021 and 1022, which deal with detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism, have generated controversy as to their legal meaning and their potential implications for abuse of Presidential authority. Although the White House and Senate sponsors maintain that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) already grants presidential authority for indefinite detention, the Act states that Congress "affirms" this authority and makes specific provisions as to the exercise of that authority. The detention provisions of the Act have received critical attention by, among others, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, and some media sources which are concerned about the scope of the President's authority, including contentions that those whom they claim may be held indefinitely could include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, including arrests by members of the Armed Forces.

The bill passed the House 283 to 136.

A federal court issued an order blocking the indefinite detention powers of the NDAA for American citizens on the grounds of unconstitutionality on May 16, 2012 in response to a lawsuit filed by journalist Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Wolf and others. US District Judge Katherine B. Forrest ruled the NDAA 2012 likely violates the 1st and 5th Amendments. Issuing a preliminary injunction prevents the US government from enforcing section 1021 of the NDAA's "Homeland Battlefield" provisions pending further order of the court or an amendment to the statute by US Congress. Judge Forrest was requested by the Obama administration to undo her ruling. The Obama Administration struck down Judge Forrest's ruling on May 25, 2012 by arguing that the plaintiff's claims did not match up to how the government was interpreting the said law, and that under Separation of Powers such a lawsuit should not be focused towards the executive branch..

Indefinite detention without trial: Section 1021

The detention sections of the NDAA begin by "affirm" that the authority of the President under the AUMF, a joint resolution passed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, includes the power to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person (including U.S. citizens)"who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners", and anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies in aid of such enemy forces, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the ". The text authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin", or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity".

Addressing previous conflict with the Obama Administration regarding the wording of the Senate text, the Senate-House compromise text, in sub-section 1021(d), also affirms that nothing in the Act "is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force". The final version of the bill also provides, in sub-section(e), that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." As reflected in Senate debate over the bill, there is a great deal of controversy over the status of existing law.

An amendment to the Act that would have replaced current text with a requirement for executive clarification of detention authorities was rejected by the Senate.

According to Senator Carl Levin, "the language which precluded the application of section 1031 to American Citizens was in the bill that we originally approved in the Armed Services Committee and the Administration asked us to remove the language which says that US Citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section". However, Levin later clarified his comments in the same address, saying "Administration officials reviewed the draft language for this provision and recommended additional changes. We were able to accommodate those recommendations, except for the Administration request that the provision apply only to detainees captured overseas and there's a good reason for that. Even here, the difference is modest, because the provision already excludes all U.S. citizens. It also excludes lawful residents of U.S., except to extent permitted by the constitution. The only covered persons left are those who are illegally in this country or on a tourists/short-term basis. Contrary to some press statements, the detainee provisions in our bill do not include new authority for the permanent detention of suspected terrorists. Rather, the bill uses language provided by the Administration to codify existing authority that has been upheld in federal courts."

Requirement for military custody: Section 1022

All persons arrested and detained according to the provisions of section 1021, including those detained on U.S. soil, whether detained indefinitely or not, are required to be held by the United States Armed Forces. The law affords the option to have U.S. citizens detained by the armed forces but this requirement does not extend to them, as with foreign persons. Lawful resident aliens may or may not be required to be detained by the Armed Forces, "on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States."

Actions from the White House and Senate leading to the vote

The White House threatened to veto the Senate version of the Act, arguing in an executive statement on 17 November 2011 that while "the authorities granted by the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, including the detention authority... are essential to our ability to protect the American people... (and) Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk."

The statement furthermore objected to the mandate for "military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects," which it called inconsistent with "the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets." The White House may now waive the requirement for military custody for some detainees following a review by appointed officials including the Attorney General, the secretaries of state, defense and homeland security, the chairman of the military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff and the director of national intelligence.

During debate within the Senate and before the Act's passage, Senator Mark Udall introduced an amendment interpreted by the ACLU and some news sources as an effort to limit military detention of American citizens indefinitely and without trial. The amendment proposed to strike the section "Detainee Matters" from the bill, and replace section 1021 (then titled 1031) with a provision requiring the Administration to clarify the Executive's authority to detain suspects on the basis of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists. The amendment was rejected by a vote of 60-38 (with 2 abstaining). Udall subsequently voted for the Act in the joint session of Congress that passed it, and though he remained "extremely troubled" by the detainee provisions, he promised to "push Congress to conduct the maximum amount of oversight possible."

The Senate later adopted by a 98 to 1 vote a compromise amendment, based upon a proposal by Senator Dianne Feinstein, which preserves current law concerning U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens detained within the United States. After a Senate-House compromise text explicitly ruled out any limitation of the President's authorities, but also removed the requirement of military detention for terrorism suspects arrested in the United States, the White House issued a statement saying that it would not veto the bill.

In his Signing Statement, President Obama explained: “"I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed . . . I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists."

Controversy over indefinite detention

American and international reactions

Section 1021 and 1022 have been called a violation of constitutional principles and of the Bill of Rights. Internationally, the UK-based newspaper The Guardian has described the legislation as allowing indefinite detention "without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay;" Al Jazeera has written that the Act "gives the US military the option to detain US citizens suspected of participating or aiding in terrorist activities without a trial, indefinitely." The official Russian international radio broadcasting service Voice of Russia has been highly critical of the legislation, writing that under its authority "the US military will have the power to detain Americans suspected of involvement in terrorism without charge or trial and imprison them for an indefinite period of time;" it has furthermore written that "the most radical analysts are comparing the new law to the edicts of the 'Third Reich' or 'Muslim tyrannies.'" The Act was strongly opposed by the ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, The Center for Constitutional Rights, and The Council on American-Islamic Relations, and was criticized in editorials published in The New York Times and other news organizations.

Americans have sought resistance of the NDAA through successful resolution campaigns in various states and municipalities. The state of Rhode Island, the Colorado counties of Wade, El Paso, and Fremont, as well as the municipalities of Northampton, MA. and Fairfax, CA, have all passed resolutions rejecting the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA. The Bill of Rights Defense Committee has launched a national campaign to mobilize individuals at the grassroots level to pass local and state resolutions voicing opposition to the NDAA. Campaigns have begun to grow in New York City, Miami and San Diego, among other cities and states.

Attorneys Carl J. Mayer and Bruce I. Afran filed a complaint January 13, 2012, in the Southern U.S. District Court in New York City on the behalf of Chris Hedges against Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to challenge the legality of the Authorization for Use of Military Force as embedded in the latest version of the National Defense Authorization Act, signed by the president Dec. 31.

Views of the Obama Administration

On December 31 and after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 into law, President Obama issued a statement on it addressing "certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of terrorism suspects". In the statement Obama maintains that "the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF". The statement also maintains that the "Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens", and that it "will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law". Referring to the applicability of civilian versus military detention, the statement argued that "the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa'ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost."

On 28 February 2012, the Obama Administration announced that it would waive the requirement for military detention in "any case in which officials that placing a detainee in military custody could impede counterterrorism cooperation with the detainee’s home government or interfere with efforts to secure the person’s cooperation or confession". Application of military custody to any suspect is determined by a national security team including the attorney general, the secretaries of state, defense and homeland security, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the director of national intelligence.

Legal arguments that the legislation does not allow the indefinite detention of US citizens

Mother Jones has written that the Act "is the first concrete gesture Congress has made towards turning the homeland into the battlefield," arguing that "codifying indefinite detention on American soil is a very dangerous step." The magazine has nevertheless contested claims by The Guardian and The New York Times that the Act "allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay," writing that "they're simply wrong... It allows people who think the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks gives the president the authority to detain US citizens without charge or trial to say that, but it also allows people who can read the Constitution of the United States to argue something else." As legal commentator Joanne Mariner pointed out in an article in Verdict, the scope of existing detention power under the AUMF is "subject to vociferous debate and continuing litigation." In the years that followed the September 11 attacks, the AUMF was interpreted to allow the indefinite detention of both citizens and non-citizens arrested far from any traditional battlefield, including in the United States.

Other legal commentators argue that the NDAA does not permit truly "indefinite" detention, given that the period of detention is limited by the duration of the armed conflict. In making this claim, they emphasize the difference between (1) detention pursuant to the "laws of war" and (2) detention pursuant to domestic criminal law authorities. David Rivkin and Lee Casey, for example, argue that detention under the AUMF is authorized under the laws of war and is not indefinite because the authority to detain ends with the cessation of hostilities. They argue that the NDAA invokes "existing Supreme Court precedent . . . that clearly permits the military detention (and even trial) of citizens who have themselves engaged in hostile acts or have supported such acts to the extent that they are properly classified as 'combatants' or 'belligerents.'" This reflects the fact that, in their view, the United States is, pursuant to the AUMF, at war with al-Qaeda, and detention of enemy combatants in accordance with the laws of war is authorized. In their view, this does not preclude trial in civilian courts, but it does not require that the detainee be charged and tried. If the detainee is an enemy combatant who has not violated the laws of war, he is not chargeable with any triable offense. Commentators who share this view emphasize the need not to blur the distinction between domestic criminal law and the laws of war.

Proposed legislative reforms

Following the passage of the NDAA, various proposals have been offered to clarify the detainee provisions. One example, H.R. 3676, sponsored by U.S. Representative Jeff Landry of Louisiana, would amend the NDAA "to specify that no U.S. citizen may be detained against his or her will without all the rights of due process." Other similar bills in the U.S. House of Representatives have been introduced by Representatives John Garamendi of California and Chris Gibson of New York.

Plaintiffs sue federal government

Attorneys Carl J. Mayer and Bruce I. Afran filed a complaint January 13, 2012, in the Southern U.S. District Court in New York City on the behalf of Chris Hedges against Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to challenge the legality of the Authorization for Use of Military Force as embedded in the latest version of the National Defense Authorization Act, signed by the president Dec. 31. Additionally plaintiffs were also included into the suit such as Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, Naomi Wolf, and Cornell West.

On May 16, 2012 U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest, in a 68-page opinion, ruled Wednesday that Section 1021 of the NDAA was unconstitutional. Judge Forrest struck down language in the law that she said gave the government the ability to incarcerate people based on what they said or wrote. “At the hearing on this motion, the government was unwilling or unable to state that these plaintiffs would not be subject to indefinite detention under 1021,” Judge Forrest noted. “Plaintiffs are therefore at risk of detention, of losing their liberty, potentially for many years.”

Sanctions targeting the Iranian Central Bank

As part of the ongoing dispute over Iranian uranium enrichment, section 1245 of the NDAA imposes unilateral sanctions against the Central Bank of Iran, effectively blocking Iranian oil exports to countries which do business with the United States. The new sanctions impose penalties against entities — including corporations and foreign central banks — which engage in transactions with the Iranian central bank. Sanctions on transactions unrelated to petroleum take effect 60 days after the bill is signed into law, while sanctions on transactions related to petroleum take effect a minimum of six months after the bill's signing. The bill grants the U.S. President authority to grant waivers in cases in which petroleum purchasers are unable, due to supply or cost, to significantly reduce their purchases of Iranian oil, or in which American national security is threatened by implementation of the sanctions. Following the signing into law of the NDAA, the Iranian rial fell significantly against the U.S. dollar, reaching a record low two days after the bill's enactment, a change widely attributed to the expected impact of the new sanctions on the Iranian economy. Officials within the Iranian government have threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, an important passageway for Middle East oil exports, should the U.S. press forward with the new sanctions, as planned.

See also

• Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists
• Enemy Expatriation Act
• Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
• Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
• Marbury v. Madison
• Military Commissions Act of 2006
• National Defense Authorization Act
• Posse Comitatus Act
• Ex parte Quirin
• Smith Act
• Unlawful combatant

References

1. 112th Congress, 1st Session, H1540CR.HSE: "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012."
2. "Obama signs defense bill, pledges to maintain legal rights of terror suspects". Washington Post. Retrieved December 31, 2011.
3. "Obama Signs NDAA". ACLU. 31 November 2011. Retrieved 2011-12-31. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
4. Wolverton, J., "Obama Signs National Defense Authorization Act into Law," The New American, .
5. “President Obama's signing statement” , “White House Press Office”, December 31, 2011
6. "Barack Obama: Statement on Signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012". John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters, The American Presidency Project . December 31, 2011. Retrieved 2012-01-03.
7. Sections 1232 and 1240.
8. Section 1233 from H1540CR.HSE: "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.".
9. ^ "STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY" (PDF). 17 November 2011. Retrieved 2011-12-14.
10. Knickerbocker, Brad (3 December 2011). "Guantánamo for US citizens? Senate bill raises questions". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved December 18, 2011.
11. Khalek, Rania, "Global Battlefield' Provision Allowing Indefinite Detention of Citizens Accused of Terror Could Pass This Week", Alternet, December 13, 2011.
12. Library of Congress THOMAS. H.R. 1540 – National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012 Versions of H.R.1540.
13. ^ Khaki, Ateqah, "Senate Rejects Amendment Banning Indefinite Detention," ACLU Blog of Rights, November 29, 2011.
14. ^ Savage, Charlie, "Senate Declines to Clarify Rights of American Qaeda Suspects Arrested in U.S.," The New York Times, December 1, 2011.
15. Carter, Tom "US Senators back law authorizing indefinite military detention without trial or charge," World Socialist Web Site, December 2, 2011.
16. "H.R.1540: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 – U.S. Congress". OpenCongress. Retrieved 2011-12-14.
17. "S.1867: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 – U.S. Congress". OpenCongress. Retrieved 2011-12-14.
18. "FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 932". Retrieved 16 April 2012.
19. Wolf, Naomi (28 March 2012). "The reason I'm helping Chris Hedges' lawsuit against the NDAA". The Guardian. Retrieved 29 May 2012.
20. Hedges v. Obama, 12-cv-00331 (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan) May 16, 2012).
21. Bob Van Voris and Patricia Hurtado (17 May 2012). "Military Detention Law Blocked By New York Judge". Bloomberg. Retrieved 29 May 2012.
22. Klasfeld, Adam (16 May 2012). "Judge Blocks Controversial NDAA". Courthouse News Service. Retrieved 29 May 2012.
23. Neumeister, Laura (16 May 2012). "Indefinite Detention Blocked: District Judge Rules On Controversial Provision Of NDAA". Associated Press. The Huffington Post. Retrieved 29 May 2012.
24. Greenwald, Glenn (16 May 2012). "Federal court enjoins NDAA". salon.com. Retrieved 29 May 2012.
25. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-05-25/news/sns-rt-us-usa-security-lawsuitbre84p01h-20120525_1_detention-new-law-preliminary-injunction-bars
26. http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/recon-motion.pdf
27. 112th Congress, 1st Session, H1540CR.HSE: "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012." pp. 265-266.
28. "Senate Poised to Pass Indefinite Detention Without Charge or Trial", American Civil Liberties Union, December 1, 2011.
29. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/302754-1
30. McGreal, Chris, "Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial," The Guardian, 14 December 2011: .
31. Greenwald, Glenn, "Obama to sign indefinite detention bill into law," Salon.com, 14 December 2011: .
32. ^ Savage, Charlie (February 28, 2012). "Obama Issues Waivers on Military Custody for Terror Suspects". New York Times. Retrieved March 18, 2012.
33. ^ "Despite concerns, Udall gives nod to Defense Authorization bill." Denver Post, December 15, 2011.
34. Udall Amendment Text for SA 1107.
35. U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 112th Congress – 1st Session
36. Gerstein, Josh, "Senate Votes to Allow Indefinite Detention of Americans." Politico, December 1, 2011.
37. "White House issues statement saying it will not veto defense bill". The Washington Post. December 14, 2011. Retrieved December 18, 2011.
38. "Barack Obama: Statement on Signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012". Presidency.ucsb.edu. 2011-12-31. Retrieved 2012-02-27.
39. "Commentary: trampling the bill of rights in defense's name." The Kansas City Star, 14 December 2011: .
40. McGreal, C., "Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial", The Guardian, 14 December 2011: .
41. Parvaz, D., "US lawmakers legalise indefinite detention", Al Jazeera, 16 December 2011: .
42. Kramnik, Ilya "New US Defense Act curtails liberties not military spending," Voice of Russia, 28 December 2011.
43. Rosenthal, A., "President Obama: Veto the Defense Authorization Act," The New York Times, 30 November 2011: .
44. Grey, B. and T. Carter, "The Nation and the National Defense Authorization Act", World Socialist Web Site, 27 December 2011: .
45. E.D. Kain: The National Defense Authorization Act is the Greatest Threat to Civil Liberties Americans Face. In: Forbes. December 5, 2011
46. "NDAA: Liberty Preservation Act Tracking". Tenth Amendment Center. Retrieved 29 May 2012.
47. http://constitutioncampaign.org/campaigns/dueprocess/map.php>
48. ^ Hedges, Chris (16 January 2012). "Why I'm Suing Barack Obama". Common Dreams. Retrieved 29 May 2012.
49. "Barack Obama: Statement on Signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012". John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters, The American Presidency Project . December 31, 2011. Retrieved 2012-01-01.
50. The Defense Bill Passed. So What Does It Do?
51. "The NDAA Explained". Verdict. 2 January 2012.
52. ^ "Rivkin & Casey, Bill's detainee provisions reaffirm the laws of war."
53. ICRC official statement: The relevance of IHL in the context of terrorism, 21 July 2005
54. Library of Congress: Thomas.
55. Hedges, Chris, "A Victory for All of Us", Thruthdig, 18 May 2012.
56. MacInnis, Laura and Parisa Hafezi (31 December 2011). "U.S. steps up sanctions as Iran floats nuclear talks". Reuters Canada. Retrieved 2012-01-05.
57. ^ Lee, Carol E. and Keith Johnson (4 January 2012). "U.S. Targets Iran's Central Bank". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2012-01-05.
58. MacInnis, Laura (1 January 2012). "U.S. imposes sanctions on banks dealing with Iran". Reuters India. Retrieved 2012-01-05.
59. Richter, Paul and Ramin Mostaghim (9 January 2012). "Sanctions begin taking a bigger toll on Iran". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2012-01-11.
60. ^ "Sanctions on Iran Whipsaw Currency". Wall Street Journal. 4 January 2012. Retrieved 2012-01-11.
61. Gladstone, Rick (20 December 2011). "As Further Sanctions Loom, Plunge in Currency's Value Unsettles Iran". New York Times. Retrieved 2012-01-11.
62. LaFranchi, Howard (2 January 2012). "Iran currency plummets: A sign US sanctions are taking hold?". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2012-01-11.
63. Sanger, David E. and Annie Lowrey (27 December 2011). "Iran Threatens to Block Oil Shipments, as U.S. Prepares Sanctions". Retrieved 2012-01-11.

External links

• Full Text of the Act (Public Law 112-81)

• Civil liberties in the United States
• Human rights in the United States
• Obama administration controversies
• United States Department of Defense
• United States federal defense and national security legislation