National Defense Authorization Act Analysis - Research Paper Example

? Research Analysis of H.R.1540 National Defense ization Act under the 111th Congress Specifically Introduction The H.R 1540“National Defense Authorization Act” was signed by President Obama with very minimal debate in 2011. The idea behind the passage and signing of the Act was to stop the threat of Al Qaeda to the security of the nation, which justified the repealing of the fundamental freedom and rights of the constitution. The signing brought a lot of controversy more so from “National Defense Authorization Act” (NDAA H.R. 1540) with reservations for the constitutional right that allows for regulation of interrogation, prosecution, and detention of any suspected terrorists (“A One-Two punch” 2012). The Act according to NDAA renders the state to be a police state. In addition, the Act was signed with acknowledgment that some provisions that are in NDAA are objectionable. It was signed without disallowing the NDAA (H.R 1540) or even sending it back to the congress for the objections that were raised. Justification of the NDAA as a way of combating terrorism is not convincing. According to Trautman (2010, 16), the Act can also be viewed as a counter terrorism agenda. This is because any American who is opposed to the Act or policies of the state can in the provisions of the Act, be labeled as a suspected terrorist. Moreover, such a person can be arrested under the military detention. Although, during the signing, the president did emphasize that the government would not detain any citizen without trial, this can be unattainable. It was proposed by Yarling (2012, 24), that, this is so, as the provisions of the Act do provide for detention when one is a suspect of terrorism. The NDAA repealed the US Constitution and the passage has frActured the American democracy because the Act as created a military government and totalitarian State that is in civilian clothes. This Act was passed after the military agenda in Washington. The pursuit by military of worldwide hegemony required the “militarization of the Homeland” that led to the end of the American Republic. The Act has misled the citizens of America as it gives the president a democratic face. In addition, the Act unfolds the 911 Military police state tools. The values and traditions of the people of America that were in derogation have been repealed in the US Constitution from the day the Act was signed. The Act allows for the indefinite and arbitrary military detention. The Act is from the Senate Republicans and Democrats who want further sanctions to the Iran government (“A One-Two punch” 2012). This is due to the fear that the developing of the nuclear weapons will outweigh the concerns raised. The oil prices will be driven up, and the Americans will feel the effects at the gas pumps. The Senate has weighed options in adding sanction measures to the defense bill to a massive $662 billion. Trautman said (2010, 45), “The lawmakers, on the other hand, voted to limit the debate on legislation”. This in effect, wrapped up the bill in a weeks time. The legislation is to authorize funds for weapons, military personnel, national security programs on Energy sector, and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, the bill is less than what the President had requested for in the budget. At the same time, it is less than what the Congress had also requested for in the financial year. The Congress has a wider support on sanctions against Iran, which is a concern for Israel and U.S national security. The government has announced new penalties that are to be taken against Iran that includes identifying Iran’s banking sector as a money laundering concern, among others. The U.S banks, therefore, needs to increase monitoring to ensure that they avoid trading with the Iranian financial institutions plus their foreign affiliates. The lawmakers wanted tougher penalties that the administration was avoiding. The defense bill got an amendment from a senator, which was to target the foreign financial institutions that are in business with Central Bank of Iran. The amendment barred the banks from maintaining or opening operations within United States. It was noted by Trautman (2010, 58), “This was only to apply to foreign central banks that were involved in transActions of purchase or sale of petroleum and the products of petroleum”. The amendments on sanctions on petroleum provided for the president to determine when there are sufficient alternative supplies. In addition, the amendment gave the president power to determine, when the country in conjunction with the jurisdictions over the financial institutions has not considerably reduced the purchases of Iranians oil. Making the amendments the law makers were informed by the International Atomic Energy report that suspected Iran of clandestine work. The country was also linked in a plot of assassinating the Saudi ambassador in U.S and the attacks that took place at the British Embassy in Tehran. Kirk the sponsor of the amendment was clear in his amendment on the business with the Central Bank of Iran. He said if one was doing business with the bank then the countries can not at the same time do business with the United States. The government harbors some concerns on the amendment. However, it has many backers in the senate. The senate did approve most of the amendments by voice. They included; linking of funds for Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund requiring that the government certifies the Congress that Pakistan is countering explosive devices. Yarling said (2012, 35) that, “Another amendment was calling on the President, to look for a plan in conjunction with NATO and military to accelerate the withdrawal of U.S forces in Afghanistan”. Moreover, an amendment was passed to seek urgent intelligence on Libya’s stockpile that had around 20,000 portable anti aircraft missiles plus the threat they had on the United States and her allies. The bill National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was signed by the President after two weeks after it was passed. It seems the bill was signed intentionally during the unconducive press attention. The Act has been of critical scrutiny by both members of the Congress and Senate. The process of the legislation began way back in March before the President assented his signature. A representative Buck McKeon and one Senator John McCain had introduced the bills that were intended to transfer the counterterrorism tasks from the law enforcement to the military. The bills were grafted to the NDAA, revised under the risk of presidential proscription in both the House and Senate committees. Although, the president signed the bill into law, he did give references that when interpreted can threaten some American values. The President did open the room for the legislation of this Act at the beginning of the year. This was from his executive order on indefinite confinement of prisoners at Guantanamo (Yarling, 2012, 56). History will show that Obama justified the indefinite in proceedings while opposing the release of detainees at Guantanamo. In addition, the executive order on indefinite detention and the assent to the NDAA, as a proof. NDAA started when George Bush was the president of United States. Together with his Vice President Dick Cheney, the Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, plus other members of his administration, they took significant and radical steps in establishing the indefinite detention without trial as a way of dealing with terrorism. The Bush administration Acted unitarily and did not use the congressional sanction on the schemes of indefinite detention. The administration, established the Guantanamo, they held the citizens of America without legislative mandate and fought the judicial system (Jefferson, 2102, 90). The Obama administration came is as reformists, but adopted the Bush administration position on fight against terrorism. The administration did promise to close down Guantanamo, but participated in holding people allegedly involved in terrorism without trials. The changes never, took place, and the NDAA detention rules were codified in the Act. During the Obama administration, it has continued to litigate the powers to hold detainees indefinitely at Guantanamo. An order for those already detained at Guantanamo was given. Although, the order continued to apply for indefinite detention without trial, yet it was meant to solve the issue. Jefferson noted (2012, 32), “The order was a goodwill message, as it received pressure from congressional Republicans. It relied more on indefinite military detention, and the administration hoped for a legislative Action, thus, took the initiative. This again failed to take place as it received little support”. A conservative Republican Peter King, who headed the House Committee on Homeland Security during Bush administration, affirmed that the Bush administration had the right to detain terrorists until the end of hostilities. These were the same frameworks that the Obama administration embraced, thus, expanding the policy. A number of Republicans said they were going to seek the introduction of military detention legislation, just days after the executive order was issued. The detention provisions that they were advocating for are the same ones that found their way into the NDAA. The NDAA provides for a controversial element in the name of application to US citizens, as well. The Congressional supporters of the Act say these claims are overblown. Mac Thornberry a Representative, who is a member of the House Armed Services Committee of Texas, has complained on the misinformation on the bill. In addition, he says the legislation does not allow for the indefinite detention of the American citizens. In addition, he says the Act improves on the current law by extending the citizens unequivocal new protections. This he proves by the NDAA sections of the Act, in section 1022(b) (1) that provides that the citizens of United States are not to be detained in military custody. However, other section of the Act like 1022(b) (1) does not provide for exemption on American citizens, yet this is one of the significant provisions of the Act. At the same time, the exemption of American citizens on some provisions of the Act can have negative implications. This can reinforce the perception that the amendment of exempting the American citizens failed at the Senate level (“Federal legislative History” 2012). In addition, the subsection 1021(e) does not change the present law as claimed by Thornberry. The provision is superfluous as it does not talk about the safeguarding of the American citizens. However, the language of the provisions is meaningful on their references to arrest and capture in U.S. the provision to some extent is not relevant to citizenship, but rather the location of arrest. This is because the law does not stop the expanding and strengthening of the government’s legal authority in detention of persons that are arrested outside the U.S. This is whether they are non-citizens or citizens themselves and whether the arrests are done in the country or somewhere else like in Iran or Pakistan. The provisions of the law beg for many questions. The scope of the law is the subject of the many debates and the litigations that are continuously happening (“Federal legislative History” 2012). In the Bush administration, the law was interpreted to allow for the indefinite detention of the citizens and non-citizens who were arrested anywhere in the in the world with United States included. The Supreme Court did uphold the military detention of American citizens who were captured during the armed conflict in Afghanistan. However, it has not yet heard any indefinite detention case that involves either citizens or non-citizens, who were picked in the United States. Moreover, it has not handled any case that involves terrorist suspects. The NDAA law strengthens and reinforces the government authority to seize any terrorist suspects that are arrested outside U.S. This includes the citizens of America who are arrested outside the State. The NDAA gives prActice to explicit statutory grounding. This makes the Act to prActice the indefinite military detention with legal challenges. The two branches of government are behind the indefinite detention. It was proposed by Jefferson (2012, 45), that, this makes the Supreme Court to be hesitant in striking down even the most aggressive assertions of detention power as unconstitutional. In addition, the law makes the president to be in pressure to rely on the indefinite military detention and commission of trials. It does not make the military detention binding on any category of suspects. This provides for loopholes that Congress can use to post hoc criticism on presidents in case of any detention decision. The NDAA Act provides for the Congress, to authorize the budget of the Department of Defense. This has made it easy for the provision of a lot of taxpayer’s money for defense objectives. This is so, yet; the Act poses threats to civil liberties and violates the equal protection clause. References Federal legislative History. 2012. http://www.loc.gov/law/help/leghist.php (accessed 04 23, 2012). Jefferson, Thomas. The Library of Congress. 2012. http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php (accessed 04 23, 2012). nondaa. A One-Two punch. 02 26, 2012. https://www.stopndaa.com/page/2/ (accessed 04 23, 2012). Trautman, Brian J. Why the NDAA is Unconstitutional . 01 18, 2010. http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/18/why-the-ndaa-is-unconstitutional/ (accessed 04 23, 2012). Yarling, Chuck. An overview of FY 2012 Defense Authorization Act. 03 14, 2012. http://www.examiner.com/article/an-overview-of-fy-2012-defense-authorization-Act (accessed 04 23, 2012). Read More