Privacy SOS

AP can’t get its story straight on NDAA indefinite detention provision

Did the AP bother to read the press release it used to draft this article on the latest National Defense Authorization Act negotiations?

The article first states that the version of the bill being worked out in conference committee would provide "an exemption for U.S. citizens" from being held by the military:

But that statement seems to suggest that US citizens will be exempt from indefinite detention, which we are not. A few paragraphs later it says: "The legislation would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to a trial and subject them to indefinite detention."

Which is it, AP? The first claim or the second? Or is the difference simply that US citizens held indefinitely without trial won't necessarily be held by the military, while non-citizens will be? Could AP have parsed that in a more complicated, misleading manner?

Regardless, Congress and the Senate will likely pass this version of the bill, meaning we can kiss the Bill of Rights and due process under the law goodbye. All the government needs do to lock you up is shout "TERRORIST!" and point the finger at you. Unless the courts step in to restore basic rights, you'll be out of luck. 

If you want to fight back to avoid the kind of scenario depicted below, join us in Boston on Thursday, December 15, Bill of Rights day. Info here.

When you play this clip YouTube and Google will put a cookie on your computer

© 2021 ACLU of Massachusetts.