Group items tagged

a specific law that has passed both the Senate and the House, and is presently in a conference committee, where lawmakers reconcile the two versions. Observers once worried that the law would permit the indefinite detention of American citizens, or at least force them to rely on uncertain court challenges if unjustly imprisoned.

Personally I believe that the NDAA for 2012 should never have been signed. I also think that it is a little late to try and fix this because people in Congress have already agreed that they want to permanently detain American citizens without trial and now are just trying to save face by "opposing" it. After all the author of that amendment, Senator Feinstein, voted for the NDAA for 2012. What really confuses, and kind of angers me, is that Obama said when he signed the NDAA for 2012 he didn't want that part in the law but he was signing it anyway (I don't have a quote but I'll find one). Now he is trying to defend indefinite detention of citizens in court after a federal judge found it unconstitutional. Another interesting article about this is this one. It shows that even people who generally would work together disagree about this bill: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/ndaa-indefinite-detention_n_2326225.html

I guess the question that comes up with this part of the NDAA is whether or not our government can limit the right of due process of citizens in the name of National Security. I personally don't believe that it is okay to "indefinitely" detain a citizen just for being suspected of being affiliated with terrorists.

Image Courtesy of westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com Amanda Fox-Rouch is currently a student pursuing an undergraduate political science degree at Hunter College in New York City. She is interested in the stories of those who are typically silenced by the selectivity of the mainstream media.

"Those that give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin would have probably opposed the parts of this law which the article explains.