"NDAA does a lot of things, but the one thing it doesn't do is authorize the detention of Americans"

[morningfog]

78. I think that misses the point.

A lot of discussion and debate has been had about whether or not it allows for the indefinite detention of Americans. This debate has distracted from the fact that it does, explicitly, allow for the indefinite detention of non-citizens. That is bad enough for this to be horrible law.

From the article linked in the OP: "The NDAA is a terrible law because it forbids the funding to close GITMO. It is a terrible law because the language of the bill contains a predisposition towards indefinite detentions. The language used is the right’s attempt to revive the policies of the war on terror. The NDAA is lousy because what it is advocating runs counter to who we are as a people and what this great nation stands for."

I realize that the numbers were there, in theory, to override a veto. I wonder, though, if a veto along with an articulated reason for the veto, would have changed the frame and forced the bill to change. I wish the Dems in Congress hadn't supported it. I wish Obama hadn't signed it.