NDAA FAQ: A Guide for the Perplexed

[saras]

5. What I'm reading here makes the bill look VILE, UTTERLY INAPPROPRIATE, and typical for Bush

Detention is clearly and unequivocally illegal under international law. A mediocre law would have closed the loophole, a good one would have required prosecutions for Bush-era violations.

Anything that helps dismantle and outlaw the current system in favor of respecting international law would be a vast improvement. This bill serves to strengthen current "there's no law stopping us, so we can do what we want" attitudes. A good law would allow nothing except for what was explicitly permitted.

They're still requiring the defense to use military lawyers working for the prosecution instead of neutral ones working for the defendant.

Comparing to the Reagan/Bush era as "years past" is disingenuous to say the least. Why not compare to the situation of NOT BREAKING ANY INTERNATIONAL LAW OR TREATY?

The sheer naivete of Lawfare suggesting the purpose of these laws is to "protect the nation" pretty much places them in the radical right fringe. NO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT WHATSOEVER of Bush's illegal reign, and a general attitude that everything the Bush administration set in place was normal, constitutional, acceptably written law that only existed for the overt stated purposes. That puts them pretty far out there in la-la-land.