NDAA sparks controversy
The National Defense Authorization Act for Year 2012, signed by President Barack Obama Dec. 31, has sparked controversy over its provisions regarding “indefinite detention without trial.”
Having passed through the Senate with a 98-1 vote, the NDAA “[authorizes] appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,” says to the Act’s official text.
However, the NDAA is not without opposition, as some say the act performs in ways not covered in its description.
According to Alton Lu, writer at The Huffington Post, the NDAA violates rights guaranteed to citizens by the United States constitution by “allowing the government to detain [U.S. citizens] for no reason other than being suspected of terrorism.”
“The Fourth Amendment grants liberty from unreasonable seizures, while the Sixth guarantees every U.S. citizen a trial in front of a jury,” said Lu. “No matter what supporters of the bill might have said about the provisions being misunderstood, the simple fact is that it is unconstitutional.”
Nevertheless, others have come up in defense of the NDAA, claiming it benefits and better protects American citizens.
“A large factual gap has formed between what is being said about the bill and what provisions the bill actually contains,” said Representative Tim Griffin, a current member of U.S. Congress, in an article for The Daily Caller.
Despite the controversy, not everyone is aware of neither the NDAA’s existence, nor the possible implications surrounding it.
Madison Coit, junior, said “To be honest, I don’t know what it’s about, aside from national defense. I haven’t heard anything about it.”
“Really, I hadn’t heard of it,” said Vinh Vien, junior. “And it’s not like I haven’t been paying attention.”
Students who have heard of the NDAA, contrarily, tend to be critical of the powers it provides to the executive branch, and claim that it violates individuals’ rights.
Celina Clark, junior, said, “It’s wrong to detain someone like that… People deserve a fair trial before they’re imprisoned.”
Other students are worried about what future situations the passing of the NDAA could make possible.
Kyle Owsen, junior, said, “It’s a slippery slope, and it’s only a matter of time before the government will try to exercise this power if we give it to them.”
Regardless of the controversy, some students believe that the NDAA was not formed with malicious intentions, despite certain provisions.
“I don’t think their intent in passing it now is to get themselves a ludicrous amount of power,” said Owsen. “But… at some point in the future, the vague wording of the bill could come back to haunt us.”



