National Defense Authorization Act sparks debate among students

The National Defense Authorization Act has been a part of the White House budget for the past 49 years and was once again signed into law by President Obama on Dec. 31, 2011.

The National Defense Authorization Act for the 2012 fiscal year, however, contains new provisions that could lead to the indefinite detention of any covered persons. The act defines a covered person as "a person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks" and as "a person who was a 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, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."

The White House had previously threatened to not sign the act because of these provisions, but these claims were proven false when the President signed the act into law on New Year's Eve. The signing, however, was met with reservations on President Obama's end.

"The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it," said Obama through a statement on the White House website. "In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists."

Later in the statement, President Obama said, "moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration 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." While this is a comforting phrase for many, it is important to remember that there will be administrations after this. With elections coming up later this year, we may have a new president and a new administration that does not choose to follow the same guidelines as our current administration.

Amid the ruckus about the new provisions, it is also important to remember that this is a very important bill. Monetarily, this bill will be providing $662 billion dollars for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad.

There are generally three main viewpoints concerning this bill. The first is that the United States government will not use these provisions on its citizens and that people are getting worked up over nothing. Some people may believe that the wording was necessarily vague to prevent terrorists from slipping through loopholes. Others might think that it really isn't vague and that the public is reading too much into the bill.

The second viewpoint, and probably the most common, is remaining ignorant of what the bill is or what it could mean. There was a lot of confusion and secrecy surrounding this bill. An example would be when the House of Representatives voted to "close portions of conference" regarding the National Defense Authorization Act. This was done to prevent information pertaining to national security from being leaked out, but it also prevented information pertaining to the bill itself from reaching many American citizens.

One Parkland student, Kayla Staire, admitted that she hadn't heard of the bill. Staire is not alone in not knowing, since such information is not given the focus it deserves by many news outlets.

The third and final viewpoint would be the belief that the National Defense Authorization Act, and the provisions contained in it, is a sign of the government's failings. Nick Schall, Parkland College employee said, "It's one of those slippery slope issues. Once you start detaining people it becomes easier to detain citizens. We already live in a prison state and once we begin making it easier to detain people we get closer to a more policed prison state."

Ryann, a Parkland student who asked that her last name be withheld, felt that "President Obama made a decision to sign it and from what he said leading up to the 2008 presidential election I wouldn't believe that he would be signing something like this. I think that he only reason he signed it is to be re-elected, since this is something he adamantly disagreed with, even while signing it." Ryann also explained that she felt President Obama was trying to appeal to people who didn't already support him by signing a bill so unpopular with his usual supporters.

However you feel about the National Defense Authorization Act, it is important to become informed about this and other issues that could affect the aspect of life in the United States. For information about the National Defense Authorization Act specifically, a PDF can be downloaded from http://goo.gl/MfXEU.