The National Defense Authorization Act

In the height of the Iraq War a bill was put into law under the title, National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), during the Bush Administration. The NDAA allocates predetermined spending to different parts of the military and spells out military boundaries as to where their authority starts and where their authority ends. The bill has been under much controversy since it was signed into law. However, new focus was reinforced after the most recent adjustments were made, which Obama signed into law on Dec. 31, 2011. Obama was initially against the bill and planned to veto it.  Questions were raised after the public saw the signing statement that Obama included with the bill. The part of the bill that has most citizens concerned is what Obama stated in his signing statement, "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."        

The bill has many civil liberties groups and activists in uproar calling it unconstitutional and a forfeiture of civil liberties for national security.  On Jan. 18, Ron Paul, senator from Texas and hopeful Republican presidential nominee, took the Senate floor to express his concern for certain parts of the NDAA stating, "Section 1021 essentially codifies into law the very dubious claim of presidential authorization for use of military force to indefinitely detain American citizens without access to legal representation or due process of law.  Section 1021 provides the possibility of the U.S. military acting as a kind of police force on U.S. soil. Apprehending terror suspects, including Americans, and whisking them off to an undisclosed location indefinitely. No right to an attorney, no right to trial, no day in court."           

Many Americans have come to share the beliefs of Senator Paul, while others who are skeptical claim he is jumping to conclusions. Paul also addressed these concerns on the Senate floor saying, "Some have argued that nothing in Section 1021 explicitly mandates holding Americans without trial but it employs vague language radically expanding the detention authority to anyone who has substantially supported terrorist groups or associated forces.  No one has defined what these terms mean.  What does those terms mean?  Sadly, too many of my colleagues are ready to undermine our constitution to support such outrageous legislation."           

Congress has yet to discuss the concerns that Senator Paul has raised and the NDAA is still not yet into questioning, though many Americans fear that this could be opening a Pandora 's Box of executive and military control that will continue into the future that may become too large to scale back.  Though Obama had reservations of the detaining of terror suspects he feels there is not enough threat to American liberties to place a veto on the bill.