Enforcement of NDAA Sec. 1021 Enjoined

It's been awhile since I've posted, and I'm sure that all 2 of the people who look at this blog are severly disappointed.  I just wanted to add a quick note, from a story that showed up on Lawfare.

 Basically, a Federal Judge has enjoined enforcement of Sec. 1021 of the NDAA, discussed here.  The Court found that  --despite the Government's argument that the NDAA did nothing more than reaffirm the AUMF-- the vague language of the NDAA as to who qualifies as a "covered person" capable of detention stretches beyond who would be a "covered person" under the AUMF.

As stated in the decision:

First, by its terms, the AUMF is tied directly and only to those involved in the events of 9/11. Pub. L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 at § 2(a) (authorization of the president to use force related to “attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001); see also id. at Preamble (“Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens . . .”). Section 1021, in contrast, has a non-specific definition of “covered person” that reaches beyond those involved in the 9/11 attacks by its very terms.

Considering that this should have been the real concern about the NDAA's detention provisions to begin with --rather than the hand-wringing about American citizens arrested in the United States-- I think the decision is exactly right.

The decision can be found here.

Misreporting II: NDAA and Indefinite Detention of U.S. Citizens

So, this post is about 2 months, or 10 years too late, as will be explained.  On 12.31.11, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act.  While there is a good deal to be gravely concerned about in the NDAA, much of the commentary focused on components of the NDAA which would supposedly "allow the military to indefinitely detain terror suspects, including American citizens arrested in the United States, without charge."

The NDAA did no such thing.