by Doug Book

From its inception, the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act has been a thoroughly mistrusted piece of legislation as a key provision permits the President to place in military custody indefinitely, with neither charge nor trial, any individual defined as a terrorist or threat to the United States according to provisions of the Authorization for Use of Military Force resolution adopted just after the 9/11 attacks.[1]

When Barack Obama signed the Act into law on New Year’s Eve, he made certain to add a lengthy signing statement.  Designed to reassure those Americans who doubt this president’s word, honor, and intentions as it concerns their rights and liberty, Obama wrote:

Advertisement-content continues below

I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people.[2]

Well, as incredible as it may seem to some, Barack Obama lied.

Obama, like other defenders of the NDAA, points to language in Section 1022 of the law, which states “the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”[3]

Advertisement-content continues below

Unfortunately, even The Washington Times, usually the only newsprint standard of reason and honesty in D.C., has fallen for the notion that Barack Obama will have to respect the rights of the American public, writing “no matter what the murky NDAA says or means, it cannot strip Americans of their constitutional rights.”[4]

Well, those Constitutional rights did not prevent Black Panthers from intimidating voters from the polls; they have not stopped 40 million illegals from invading the nation, burning through a trillion or more tax dollars and committing countless crimes; they have not prevented the DOJ’s criminal smuggling of weapons into Mexico nor spared the lives lost as a result; and they have not caused a Constitutionally unqualified president to refrain from rewarding his supporters with billions of taxpayer dollars while receiving campaign “kickbacks” from the funds.

“Even if …the defense authorization…does represent some kind of White House power grab, it doesn’t matter, because any…provision negating rights held by citizens would be struck down as unconstitutional once it was adjudicated,” claims the Times article. (4)

An idealistic notion on the part of Times editorial writers, but the statement should read IF it is adjudicated. IF! For nothing in the law requires adjudication within any specific time frame.

Additionally, a careful reading of Section 1022 of the Act reveals that the supposed non-application of the law to American citizens is a sham, a fraud meant to pacify the gullible and provide cover for members of congress. For authority is specifically given the President to IGNORE this provision if he considers it necessary for purposes of national security.

Originally bestowed upon the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and Director of National Intelligence, in the final version of the Act this authority was quietly transferred to the President, probably the intent of the law’s authors all along. Perhaps that explains Obama’s keen regard for the Act’s “revised provisions!”

All but a handful of Republicans in the House and the Senate voted for passage of this incredible formula for abuse of power by the most corrupt White House inhabitant in our nation’s history. The vote history of both chambers is included in links below. Please contact those who voted against this continued assault on our liberty and thank them for their courage and honesty.

To contact your Congressional representative, use this link:

 To read more use these links:





Further reading:

House vote:

Senate vote:

This article originally appeared on and is reprinted with permission.


The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by