Obama’s Signing of NDAA
On December 31, 2011, Obama once again signed the highly-controversial NDAA, or the National Defense Authorization Act, into law, as presidents always have done for the past 48 years. Despite Obama and the government claiming the NDAA is beneficial to the public by destroying terrorists and rooting out possible terrorists, the NDAA has been receiving high vitriol from the public and some other major news sources, such as www.guardian.co.uk and www.forbes.com. The NDAA should not have been signed into the law again; as well as the high public opposition to its signing, the NDAA takes away civil liberties by expanding its war on terrorism. The government, Obama included, does not realize terrorism is used to stir overreaction in its targets; they have effectively fallen to this tactic, and to prevent even more terrorism, our privacies would become further and further disturbed. Also, if any person in the United States is accused of being a terrorist, he/she can be detained, not granted the right to trial, and even tortured; seeinindefinitely g the amount of innocent people serving time in jails and even in Guantanamo Bay (150 out of 520 were said to be innocent), an innocent person could easily suffer this dreaded consequence. The right to indefinitely detain, not give right to hold trial, and even torture gives the president dictatorial powers; although Obama has promised not to use the above stated powers, he still has them in his grip. The NDAA, lastly, denies the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments, which are or very possibly all excluded to the “possible” domestic or USA terrorist. As eviscerating the NDAA may be to public rights, it makes sure the military gets fair paychecks and helps prevent sexual harassment of female military personnel. Instead of listening mainly to politicians and military, Obama and the government should look at how much the public disapproves of the NDAA, and repeal it before any damage is caused.
On December 31, 2011, Obama once again signed the highly-controversial NDAA, or the National Defense Authorization Act, into law, as presidents always have done for the past 48 years. Despite Obama and the government claiming the NDAA is beneficial to the public by destroying terrorists and rooting out possible terrorists, the NDAA has been receiving high vitriol from the public and some other major news sources, such as www.guardian.co.uk and www.forbes.com. The NDAA should not have been signed into the law again; as well as the high public opposition to its signing, the NDAA takes away civil liberties by expanding its war on terrorism. The government, Obama included, does not realize terrorism is used to stir overreaction in its targets; they have effectively fallen to this tactic, and to prevent even more terrorism, our privacies would become further and further disturbed. Also, if any person in the United States is accused of being a terrorist, he/she can be detained, not granted the right to trial, and even tortured; seeinindefinitely g the amount of innocent people serving time in jails and even in Guantanamo Bay (150 out of 520 were said to be innocent), an innocent person could easily suffer this dreaded consequence. The right to indefinitely detain, not give right to hold trial, and even torture gives the president dictatorial powers; although Obama has promised not to use the above stated powers, he still has them in his grip. The NDAA, lastly, denies the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments, which are or very possibly all excluded to the “possible” domestic or USA terrorist. As eviscerating the NDAA may be to public rights, it makes sure the military gets fair paychecks and helps prevent sexual harassment of female military personnel. Instead of listening mainly to politicians and military, Obama and the government should look at how much the public disapproves of the NDAA, and repeal it before any damage is caused.
