or sign in with email

Ron Paul Introduces Legislation To Repeal Indefinite Detention Provisions Of NDAA

When President Obama signed the NDAA with a signing statement rather than outright vetoing the bill, there was a short but noisy uproar from many who feared the bill was a substantial threat to our civil liberties. Tucked away in a fairly larger appropriation bill was section 1021, which authorized the indefinite detetion of anyone associated with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or anyone who assistaed those forces, even if they might be U.S. citizens. While the Obama administration argued that this section only codifed a previous law (the AUMF, passed during the Bush administration) and would not be used against American citizens, the very existence of such broad powers created a lot of concern. Then SOPA came up, they shut down the internet for a day, and everyone seemed to forget all about the NDAA - everyone but Ron Paul.

Paul took time off from his campaign to become the Republican presidential nominee to introduce HR 3785, titled "To Repeal Section 1021 Of The National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2011." Not the catchiest title, but at least it gets to the point. Here is the full text of the bill, which is short enough that even Herman Cain might read it:

A BILL

To repeal section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.

 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

 

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF SECTION 1021 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012.

 

Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) is hereby repealed.

 

That's it? I guess Paul didn't take all that much time off from the campaign trail after all.

All joking aside, though, the bill supports a good idea, but does so in an inefficient fashion. It is antithetical to American values to allow the incarceration of American citizens without a trial, no matter what their crime supposedly might be. But, according to the current administrations interpretation of the law, Section 1021 isn't the source of indefinite detention provisions. According to Obama's signing statement, it's actually to AUMF that gives him the authorization to imprison terror suspects without trial. Repealing section 1021 would be good, certainly, but it wouldn't stop indefinite detention under our current interpretation of the law.

Secondly, this bill is probably going to die in committee, because it did before. When the NDAA was being debated, an ammendment that would have removed section 1021 was voted down by the Senate. Introducing a bill that is exactly the same as an already ignored ammendment is, well, kind of silly. The only way this bill could succeed where the ammendment failed is if Paul can somehow galvanize enormous public support behind it - but he hasn't really set himself up for that. For one thing, he made the bill itself about as bland as possible. Which is going to inspire people more: "Let's ban indefinite detention of Americans!" or "Let's repeal section 1021 of the NDAA!" They don't name bills things like the No Child Left Behind Act or the PATRIOT Act for no reason; that makes it much easier to sell the concept of the bill with just a few words. Paul's bill is efficient and to the point, but also not terribly marketable. 

Don't get me wrong - I think Paul's intentions here are admirable, even if this bill is more likely to just generate some buzz for his campaign rather than actually change any laws. It doesn't cut to the root of the indefinite detention problem, it's being sent to a Congress that's already said no to the same policy, and it wasn't written to easily gain support. Stopping indefinite detention will take more than just asking to repeal Section 1021.

 

Want to connect with other Politics Ologists? Join the discussion over on My.Ology.com!

Follow Jonathan Moormann on Twitter: @HeedTheWalrus.

 

Recommended Ologies: