De-spinning the NDAA

KA CLUNK, KA CLUNK, KA CLUNK - thats the spin cycle, getting a little out of balance...read on....

So we all (hopefully) know that the NDAA has been signed into law....but the spin would have you believe that the Obama Administration was reluctant to sign the bill due to the provisions on indefinite detention (aaaawwww...isnt that adorable!)....but that is really only a fraction of the story.  If you -read- the official Obama Administration response to the NDAA, you would probably come to the same conclusion that I have...which is that the administration was hesitant to pass the NDAA as written, not because it codified indefinite detention (which has already been made de-facto legal, as shown below) but rather because it specifically classifies these detainees as “Military Detainees”, thus giving them Geneva Convention protections.

Excerpts from the administrations response :

(STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY S. 1867 – National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2012 ):

“Section 1031 attempts to expressly codify the detention authority that exists under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) (the “AUMF”). The authorities granted by the AUMF, including the detention authority, are essential to our ability to protect the American people from the threat posed by al-Qa'ida and its associated forces, and have enabled us to confront the full range of threats this country faces from those organizations and individuals. Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk. ”


“The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects. This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President's authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals. ”

To their credit, the administration goes on to raise questions about the military detention of American citizens, which by my reading of the bill is pretty shaky anyway, though it does carry provisions for citizens engaged in hostilities in concert with Al Queda / et al (pretty vauge, really - not good) .


As stated in the Administrations response, the concern is that the Geneva Convention will restrict the handling (or mis-handling) of these detainees, and the protections could hinder the techniques that we have become accustomed to using (extraordinary rendition, anyone?), and would also bar things like summary execution, which was being pushed for earlier in the case of confessions, as a way of dealing with the "what do we do with them now?" problem. Also, Military detainees can only be held until the “end of hostilities”, not forever, which means that if / when we end the “war on terror” we would have to set them free. Also, the holding of inmates would have to meet specific conditions, and could be subject to international scrutiny....so, check it out, and decide whether or not you have been spun! 

I have a copy of the administrations response here : http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3595202/saps1867s_20111117.pdf

Please Dl it and read it in its entirety for yourself!!!!

 I also addressed NDAA Issues here before the bill was signed, so follow this link for more analysis and information...