Debate continued to rage this week over a short, loosely worded segment of the new 565-page 2012 National Defense Authorization Act that critics, lawmakers and now a federal judge say makes permanent a controversial, post-9\/11 loophole that opened a dangerous door to approving the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without a trial.<\/p>\n
The Obama administration and the law\u2019s supporters have maintained that the president\u2019s signing statement that secured the legislation\u2019s passage on New Year\u2019s Eve, as well as additional rules he issued in February, should be enough to assuage the fears of the law\u2019s opponents. Both documents suggest that U.S. citizens will have their constitutional right to a trial protected.<\/p>\n
Civil liberties activists, however, are quick to argue that the statements lack the enforcement mechanisms to guarantee the administration will not use the vague language of the law\u2019s Section 1021 to indefinitely detain Americans. It also provides no guarantee that future administrations wouldn\u2019t willingly apply the statute more broadly.<\/p>\n
U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest agreed with these concerns earlier this month, finding Section 1021 unconstitutional in a lawsuit brought by a group of journalists and activists. The measure had a “chilling impact on first amendment rights,” she wrote in her ruling, deconstructing arguments from the president\u2019s lawyers several times.<\/p>\n
That didn\u2019t sway House lawmakers, however, who shortly thereafter voted against a bill to guarantee civilian trials for any terrorism suspect arrested in the United States.<\/p>\n
While the the legal jargon of the case and the ambiguous wording of Section 1021 can be hard to wade through, Americans might be interested to learn what actions might lead to their detention according to the National Defense Authorization Act. Below are a few hypothetical examples, based both on the legislation, as well as the court case that found it unconstitutional:<\/p>\n