The Next US Dictat-- Khm, I Mean President

You are probably familiar with the fact that the US Congress passed a law called National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in 2011, which President Obama (conveniently) signed on December 31st after having first promised to veto it. Of course the veto threat was removed after the bill was changed so that, as the White House stated, "the language does not challenge or constrain the president’s ability to collect intelligence" and "incapacitate dangerous terrorists". In other words, after the bill gave more power to the President. And you thought Obama had threatened to veto because of his civil liberties concerns.

Either way, the 562 page long Act contains some language that you can easily imagine a dictator using. In fact, it does seem to lead the US down the road of presidential dictatorship. Here is section 1021:

"Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force... includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain... A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces... The disposition of a person under the law of war... may include... Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force."

Notice the vague language. As rollingstone.com noted, what does it mean to be a part of? Or substantially support? What is substantial? What are associated forces and what can be meant as hostilities? What is a belligerent act? And so on and so forth. These are not trivial questions in any way. Substantial can mean almost anything. So can hostilities. Demonstrations, or even criticism can easily be interpreted as being hostile. Normally these terms would be decided in Court after due process of law but remember, we are talking about "Detention under the law of war without trial". This means that any person in the world can be indefinitely detained if the US President expresses such a will or wish. Not that this has not been the practice thus far but at least it was not codified in a Statute. 

Furthermore, the NDAA may be understood as allowing indefinite detention of US citizens also. It's true that the Act contains the language that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens...", but, as the tenthamendmentcenter.com explains, "there is no Supreme Court case providing the necessary protection preserved by the law’s provision that “existing law or authorities” are preserved." NDAA also includes "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States." But again, as per the tenthamendmentcenter.com "This section says that the administration is not REQUIRED to keep a U.S. citizen or legal resident alien in indefinite military custody. But it does not prevent the administration from doing so."

No wonder the political race for the White House is so fierce. Up for grabs potentially is a military dictatorship of the world. Nice!

Matej Avsenak Ogorevc