The NDAA for 2012: What it means for U.S. citizens

Part 4 of 5

In Part 3 of this series, Church analyzed the critical element of the NDAA, Section 1021, which many critics see as disastrous. This week, he continues that analysis and examines other significant sections.

1. Section 1021 (continued) — As for Prof. David Cole’s worry over whether the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) would permit detention of “mere supporters” of al-Qaeda and other enemy forces in ways not consistent with the laws of war, Lederman and Vladeck “think it is fair to assume that Congress has now ratified [the Department of Justice’s] understanding that in construing the Authorization for Use of Military Force’s (AUMF) detention authority, it may be necessary to look to permissible detention practices that would be ‘appropriately analogous...in a traditional international armed conflict.’”

What kinds of “support” to al-Qaeda would justify military detention in light of “long-standing law-of-war principles”? The Department of Justice said in a 2009 brief that those who provide unwitting or insignificant support are not subject to AUMF detention authority. And there are likely significant detention limits with respect to persons who provide medical support to enemy forces while “permanently and exclusively engaged as a medic.”

On the other hand, perhaps substantial supporters of enemy forces who are apprehended while accompanying such forces can be detained on roughly the same terms as the forces themselves, just as they can be in an international conflict. And Professor Ryan Goodman suggested in “The Detention of Civilians in Armed Conflict” for the American Journal of International Law that perhaps the AUMF could be construed to permit the United States to detain, in an internment capacity, civilians whose support for al-Qaeda makes such detention “absolutely necessary,” or for “imperative reasons of security,” akin to the permissible detentions of protected civilians in international conflicts under articles 42 and 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, as was done in the Iraq war. But for the most part, the “contours” of the “substantial support” basis for detention would have to be developed by the Executive branch and by the habeas courts in discrete application to concrete facts in individual cases. If any such cases arise, they “may require the identification and analysis of various analogues from traditional international armed conflicts.”

Although there may be disagreement about how that approach cashes out in individual cases, “the larger point going forward is the central role that such law-of-war analysis should play...when the Executive and the courts construe what detention authority the AUMF confers upon the president.”

2. Section 1022 — As Benjamin Wittes and fellow national security law analyst (and Lawfare Blog co-founder) Professor Robert Chesney explained last Dec. 19, this section purports not merely to authorize but to require military custody for a subset of those detainable under Section 1021. It requires that the military hold a “covered person” pending disposition under the law of war if that person is “a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda” and is participating in an attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

The president is allowed to waive this requirement for national security reasons. The provision exempts U.S. citizens entirely, and it applies to lawful permanent resident aliens for conduct within the United States to whatever extent the Constitution permits. And it insists that: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the [F.B.I.] or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless of whether such covered person is held in military custody.”

3. Section 1024 — According to Wittes and Chesney (whose opinions will be relied upon and possibly quoted throughout this treatment of NDAA sections), this mandates the creation of new and quite generous procedures for determining the status of detainees held in military custody. Regardless of where the detainee is held, the procedures provide a hearing before a military judge who will make a status determination; the detainee shall be represented by military counsel if he so chooses. These procedures can be applied as a matter of discretion where habeas is available, as in Guantanamo. For Bagram and elsewhere where habeas is not available, these provisions “seem to require a significant enhancement of process for detainees slated for long-term detention.”

4. Sections 1026 and 1027 — These prevent the use of federal funds for building detention facilities in the United States, or transferring Guantanamo detainees to domestic facilities or releasing them into the United States, effectively continuing a Congressional policy of preventing more Article III criminal trials of Guantanamo detainees and preventing the construction of alternative facilities that would enable President Obama to fulfill his promise to close Guantanamo.

5. Section 1028 — This prevents overseas transfers of Guantanamo detainees absent a rigorous certification by the Secretary of Defense that they will not pose a danger. Wittes and Chesney note that such a requirement under existing law has effectively halted efforts to resettle certain Guantanamo detainees, but the new certification requirement seems to allow slightly more flexibility.

The next column will make an overall assessment of where the NDAA leaves us. See the first parts of the series at www.tricornernews.com.

Charles R. Church is an attorney practicing in Salisbury who for years has studied Guantanamo Bay detention, torture, habeas corpus and related issues.

Latest News

South Kent School’s unofficial March reunion

Elmarko Jackson was named a 2023 McDonald’s All American in his senior year at South Kent School. He helped lead the Cardinals to a New England Prep School Athletic Conference (NEPSAC) AAA title victory and was recruited to play at the University of Kansas. This March he will play point guard for the Jayhawks when they enter the tournament as a No. 4 seed against (13) Samford University.

Riley Klein

SOUTH KENT — March Madness will feature seven former South Kent Cardinals who now play on Division 1 NCAA teams.

The top-tier high school basketball program will be well represented with graduates from each of the past three years heading to “The Big Dance.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Hotchkiss grads dancing with Yale

Nick Townsend helped Yale win the Ivy League.

Screenshot from ESPN+ Broadcast

LAKEVILLE — Yale University advanced to the NCAA men’s basketball tournament after a buzzer-beater win over Brown University in the Ivy League championship game Sunday, March 17.

On Yale’s roster this year are two graduates of The Hotchkiss School: Nick Townsend, class of ‘22, and Jack Molloy, class of ‘21. Townsend wears No. 42 and Molloy wears No. 33.

Keep ReadingShow less
Handbells of St. Andrew’s to ring out Easter morning

Anne Everett and Bonnie Rosborough wait their turn to sound notes as bell ringers practicing to take part in the Easter morning service at St. Andrew’s Church.

Kathryn Boughton

KENT—There will be a joyful noise in St. Andrew’s Church Easter morning when a set of handbells donated to the church some 40 years ago are used for the first time by a choir currently rehearsing with music director Susan Guse.

Guse said that the church got the valuable three-octave set when Harlem Valley Psychiatric Center closed in the late 1980s and the bells were donated to the church. “The center used the bells for music therapy for younger patients. Our priest then was chaplain there and when the center closed, he brought the bells here,” she explained.

Keep ReadingShow less
Picasso’s American debut was a financial flop
Picasso’s American debut was a financial flop
Penguin Random House

‘Picasso’s War” by Foreign Affairs senior editor Hugh Eakin, who has written about the art world for publications like The New York Review of Books, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker and The New York Times, is not about Pablo Picasso’s time in Nazi-occupied Paris and being harassed by the Gestapo, nor about his 1937 oil painting “Guernica,” in response to the aerial bombing of civilians in the Basque town during the Spanish Civil War.

Instead, the Penguin Random House book’s subtitle makes a clearer statement of intent: “How Modern Art Came To America.” This war was not between military forces but a cultural war combating America’s distaste for the emerging modernism that had flourished in Europe in the early decades of the 20th century.

Keep ReadingShow less