Obama uses NDAA to halt Iranian assets

Published: 07 February, 2012, 00:38

Barack Obama (AFP Photo / Mandel Ngan / Files)

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, or NDAA, has been critiqued by civil liberty advocates for its ability to grant the president the power to detain and torture American citizens without charge.

Over the weekend though, President Obama cited a separate provision in the act to authorize his decision to sanction Iran over continuing rumors of a nuclear weaponry program.

In its brief history, it is not the first time the US has used the law.

Since President Obama approved the act on December 31, 2011, the US Supreme Court has already used the language in the legislation at least once to defend the continued imprisonment of an alleged terrorist held at Guantanamo Bay for the last nine years. Musa'ab al-Madhwani, a Yemeni national, has been behind bars at the Gitmo military prison since 2002 despite never being charged — and being called a model prisoner. Last month, however, the highest court in America used the NDAA to keep him locked up indefinitely, citing that any suspicion of affiliation with terrorism-aligned insurgency was enough to keep him locked up for life.

This time, the president evoked section 1245 of the NDAA, a small script in the act that authorizes Obama the power to freeze property belonging to the Iranian government and stop the nation from accessing any of its funds, including even those held by the Central Bank of Iran. Previous legislation had allowed the US “reject” Iranian transaction, which would simply keep matters from passing through American authorities. By employing section 1245, however, the US is blocking any deals that would involve the government of Iran or their Central Bank.

The action to enforce section 1245 makes Obama’s record with the NDAA only appear that much more questionable. Under this legislation, the US president has the power to detain and interrogate any American citizen without ever taking them to court or even charging them. Even though Obama promised to never use these powers, he just as well promised that he would never sign the act, only to reverse this position later on.

“The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it,” President Obama would say upon signing the NDAA on December 31, 2011. Texas Congressman Ron Paul sarcastically responded, “what a way to usher in a New Year.”

Obama added in a signing statement that was concerned with “certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.” He insisted that he would not allow the provisions to apply to American citizens, but less than a month after signing the NDAA, the Supreme Court is already enforcing the act to keep those like al-Madhwani locked up indefinitely.

RT Original Article

Favorite

0 members favorited this

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Robert Doyle SR on February 8, 2012 at 2:27pm

Thank you for letting me knowof your concern that H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act, would allow for the detention of United States citizens without due process.

As the Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, which funds our national defense programs, you can be sure that I share your interest in this regard and appreciate knowing your thoughts. As you know, Section 1021 of the bill, which was recently signed into law by President Obama, would codify current law and strengthen policies and procedures used to detain and prosecute al Qaeda, the Taliban, affiliated groups, and those who substantially support them.

I too was concerned that the initial draft of the legislation may have allowed for indefinite detention of United States citizens. However, after an extensive review of the final version of H.R. 1540, please be assured it wouldnot extend any new authorities to detain U.S. citizens and explicitly exemptsU.S. citizens from provisions related to military custody of terrorists. It specifically states, "nothingin this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." Simply put, this provision affirms that all U.S. citizens have the right of habeas corpus under which the courtsdecide the legality of any detention. I have taken the liberty of enclosing the entire text of this section for your review and the fulltext of the legislation is available online at Congress.gov.

Section1021 of the bill is intended toprohibit the transfer or release of Guantanamo detainees to or within the United States, prohibit the use of funds to house Guantanamo detainees in the United States, and reaffirm the lawful detention of individuals from al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces engaged in armed conflict with the United States, without extending authority to detain U.S. citizens. Section 1022 of this measure alsorequires military custody for al Qaeda and associated terrorists who are captured plotting an attack on the United States, except where the President waives this requirement as not being in the national security interest of the United States. Again, this provision explicitly exempts U.S. citizens.

Like you, I look forward to the safe return of all of our troops who are deployed in Afghanistan. Our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmenwho serve in the Armed Forces put their lives on the line everyday in foreign lands in order to protect us back here at home and it is important that Congress provide our brave men and women in uniform with every tool necessary to perform their vital tasks, including proper training, necessary equipment, and essential protective gear. These courageous military personnel understand one of the fundamental principles of democracy is that our freedom is not free and I will continue to do all I can to support them as I have done throughout my tenure in Congress.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding this very grave matter of mutual concern. It is my hope that you will continue to keep me apprised of your interest in other legislative issues important to you.

With best wishes and personal regards, I am

Permalink Reply by Robert Doyle SR on February 8, 2012 at 2:41pm

That tale is just another perversion slipped into all types of Media that is false evidence appearing real=FEAR. Y'all quit the BS, get a life, or, go to your source and slap them silly . YOU pose/post this crap to do what ? You cannot screw up the U.S.A. worse than Cheney/Bush did. We are in for four more for the W.Hse. Incumbent, The Hawaiian President Barry O'Bama. Roll TIDE, ~2012~ Is finally here.

Permalink Reply by Cryptocurrency on February 8, 2012 at 8:50pm

Hmmm, you must be new to this.

Permalink Reply by Robert Doyle SR on February 9, 2012 at 1:43pm

Not new at seeing and analysis of the tales as opposed to reality. You scardy cat fearmongers all are the same. Pander to fears, incite the fools, just like Limbaugh, Rove, all Fox not news, it is just B.S. pablum, so, no, not new.

Permalink Reply by Cryptocurrency on February 9, 2012 at 10:51pm

I'm sorry for your misunderstanding. Unfortunately the NDAA is nothing new. The John Warner Defense Authorization Act had similar provisions. Nothing was changed in that legislation because people were not as vigilant a few years back.

The NDAA has even been discussed during the presidential debates and it is no secret that the provisions to detain anyone indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism still stands. In fact Romney supports this indefinite detention as he stated during one of the recent debates.

If you can not put the pieces together and see the direction we are heading in, and that they are setting up a Dictatorship on paper, then perhaps this is not the social network for you Robert Doyle. Facebook may be a better option and more conducive to your understanding.

Permalink Reply by truth on February 9, 2012 at 1:56pm