Stas Bush wrote:
Um... so let me clarify, is this a repeal of the NDAA section 1021 forever, or just for one year?
Forever; once its repealed the section would have to be reintroduced in the next year's NDAA or some other bill. NDAAs are passed annually to cover the main defense budget for the fiscal year, and a broad range of other defense related provisions are included, so the date refers to the NDAA of 2012... um... yeah. I suppose someone else could then push for reinstatement.
Most likely this bill will expire when the 112th Congress ends, barring major reassessment by the politicians who passed the original 1021, and there is still the problem of the original Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)
, Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23] passed September 18, 2001 by the 107th CONGRESS, that opened up this can of worms in a weaker form.
Alerik the Fortunate wrote:
I'm a little confused about how this operates, though....
A journalist named Chris Hedges
filed his own lawsuit against NDAA 1022.
A free private citizen could argue to have the law struck down as unconstitutional, which would be a little easier than waiting for someone caught by the law to try and do so. I'm not sure where any alternative justice system would figure in other than the court of popular opinion, which is influential, but non-binding.
Bin Laden and many of his original deputies are dead, so the AUMF 2001, based on the original text to pursue those responsible for 911, might have expired as the Al Queda of 2001 is defunct.
On the other hand, Al Queda still exists
even though it really doesn't
exist and is more, like the term 'terrorism', an umbrella term. The war on terror could go on indefinitely since its a war against a tactical concept and catchall organizational definition, not specifically defined persons or organizations that can be resolved, at once creating and perpetuating the problem.
Essentially the neocons conveniently defined problems such as terrorism to be end-ended, which in turn facilitated open-ended laws that transgress or could transgress the Constitution. Which kind of validates the Constitution, as anyone could see in that light that neocon policies are irrational from the perspective of maintaining liberty through law and order.