Obama’s Policy Directive Subsides NDAA

President Obama released a Presidential Policy Directive that will waive the ability granted to the federal government by the National Defensive Authoritative Act (NDAA) to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial or change based solely  on “secret evidence”.

The rules released by the White House on Tuesday aim to address their top concerns with the bill, said an administration official.  Leading these concerns: the ability of the president to detain legal U.S. citizens in Guantanamo Bay based on confidential evidence that can easily be tampered with without consequence to the government.

The fact sheet (linked above) states: [quote]”It is important to recognize that the scope of the new law is limited…Section 1022 does not apply to U.S. citizens, and the President has decided to waive its application to lawful permanent residents arrested in the United States.” [/quote]

Another concern of the White House addressed in these “new rules” would be the transferring of arrested persons from local law enforcement to the military.  Originally, the NDAA allowed the military to demand a transfer of an arrested person (citizen or not) to military custody without reason.  This would also result in an indefinite detention and no chance of being given a fair trial.  With these rules implemented, a person who is required to be held in military detention may be sent to local law enforcement for a fair criminal trial.  The fact sheet states: [quote]An individual required to be held in military custody under Section 1022 may be returned to law enforcement custody for criminal trial…In addition, Section 1022 does not change the FBI’s authorities to respond to terrorism threats and these procedures do not apply to any individuals held in the custody of the Department of Defense, state and local law enforcement agencies acting under their authorities, or a foreign government. [/quote]

 

 Furthermore: a transfer from civilian jail to military custody will require much more: [quote]The procedures ensure that an individual will be transferred from civilian to military custody only after a thorough evaluation of all of the relevant facts, based on the considered judgment of the President’s senior national security team, and not a rigid statutory requirement that does not account for the unique facts and circumstances of each case [/quote]

The categories of people exempted by the rules:

  • When placing a foreign country’s nationals or residents in military custody will impede counterterrorism cooperation;
  • When a foreign government indicates that it will not extradite or transfer suspects to the U.S. if the suspects may be placed in military custody;
  • When an individual is a U.S. lawful permanent resident who is arrested in this country or arrested by a federal agency on the basis of conduct taking place in this country;
  • When an individual has been arrested by a federal agency in the U.S. on charges other than terrorism offenses (unless such individual is subsequently charged with one or more terrorism offenses and held in federal custody in connection with those offenses);
  •  When an individual has been arrested by state or local law enforcement, pursuant to state or local authority, and is transferred to federal custody;
  •  When transferring an individual to military custody could interfere with efforts to secure an individual’s cooperation or confession; or
  • When transferring an individual to military custody could interfere with efforts to conduct joint trials with co-defendants who are ineligible for military custody or as to whom a determination has already been made to proceed with a prosecution in a federal or state court.

[Source]

Naturally: not everyone was happy about our civil liberties being protected.  Republican sponsors of the bill, Sens. John McCain (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) spoke against the new rules, saying that they feel Obama is undermining their intentions for the bill.  They released a joint statement expressing their concerns:

[quote]Although we have not been able to fully examine all the details of these new regulations, they raise significant concerns that will require a hearing in the Senate Armed Services Committee. We are particularly concerned that some of these regulations may contradict the intent of the detainee provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act passed by Congress last year.  [/quote]

All three senators stressed the importance of detaining terrorists suspects, whether they are citizens or not.
 
As originally drafted and passed, this bill concerned many citizens across the country.  It was largely seen as a bill flirting with Martial Law and was ignorant of the Constitution’s existence, specifically the right to privacy, a fair and speedy trial and of course freedom of speech.  In the bill’s language, it states that anybody who performs a “belligerent act”.  This was the overall concern with the bill: how dangerously vague the language was written.  While Obama swore that he would not detain legal citizens, who’s to say a future president down the line wouldn’t take advantage of the power this vagueness would grant them.  
 
The timing of the bill was also very curious.  We saw Congress debating the bill just a short while after the Occupy movement went national and world-wide.  Wouldn’t it be great for the government to be able to send some Marines down to Wall St.  to make some arrests and clean up Zuccotti Park?  Nothing is scarier to a federal government in a “democratic” nation than uprisings in places like Libya, Egypt and most recently Greece.  What if the people were to put the fear back into their lawmakers?  What if the power of the people was re-established?  Doesn’t get more belligerent than that…
 
The silver lining here is the response to the people’s reaction.  This has been a growing trend -knock on wood- as of late.  For example: the response to SOPA basically killed the bill where it was and forced a re-drafting.  
 
Be sure to keep an eye on Obama’s approval rating.  I’m sure the President will see a jump in percentage due to this Policy Directive, just in time for Obama 2012.

 

Join the club!

Video interviews, reviews, game news, and pure fandom - be the first to know!

Help Support PopGeeks

PopGeeks runs on reader support. We are not backed by corporate media, driven by algorithms, or overloaded with invasive ads. We are an independently run site created by fans, for fans, and we cover what we love: movies, TV, video games, comics, and tabletop RPGs.

Support PopGeeks for just $1/month and help keep our content free and ad-light. Your support covers hosting, pays our writers, and helps sustain independent coverage of movies, games, TV, and geek culture. Every dollar makes a difference.

This is a voluntary support payment. No physical goods or exclusive digital content are provided. PopGeeks content remains freely accessible to all. Sales tax does not apply.

Thank you for reading. Thank you for caring. And thank you for helping PopGeeks stay fan-run, freely accessible, and fully independent.

Leave a Comment