The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is a U.S. federal law specifying the budget and expenditures of the U.S. Department of Defense for a given fiscal year. These funding provisions are also accompanied by several additional propositions, such as the recent economic sanctions against Iran in §1045, and the more controversial provisions in §1021 and §1022, authorizing the detention by the U.S. Armed Forces of any person, including U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, whom were "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", and any person who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies in aid of such enemy forces, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities."

This provision is widely seen and criticized as an abuse of Presidential Authority. President Obama had sought to mitigate concerns by issuing a statement that, the "Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens", and that it "will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law". However, the statement carries no legal value or precedence and only applies to how the current administration would utilize these NDAA provisions. In voicing concerns, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) states, "The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision... [without] temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield."

On May 16, 2012, Judge Katherine B. Forrest of the Southern District of New York issued an injunction against use of the provision on behalf of a group of journalists and activists who had filed suit in March, claiming that they were forced to curb their reporting and activist activities due to fear of violating Section 1021; a section which prohibits providing "substantial support" for terrorist groups, without any definitions as to what that means. The judge ruled that it was not only unconstitutional due to First Amendment violations, but that it was also too vague making it unclear when someone could fall subject to detention. The judge’s decision is certainly subject to appeal; however, there have been several successful campaigns to pass resolutions rejecting the detention provisions of the NDAA and the Bill of Rights Defense Committee has launched a nation-wide campaign to mobilize people to pass resolutions at the local and state levels in opposition to these provisions.

The NDAA for the Fiscal year 2013 is set for Congress and still includes these same provisions, as an amendment offered to repeal these provisions was rejected.

The author of this article can be reached via email at Justice360@muslimcongress.org. For more information about Justice360, visit http://www.muslimcongress.org/360.

DISCLAIMER: Justice360° Legal Bulletin’s are meant to assist in the general understanding of the current law relating to the stated topics. JUSTICE360° LEGAL BULLETINS SHOULD NOT BE REGARDED AS LEGAL ADVICE. Organizations or individuals with specific questions should seek the advice of legal counsel.