The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013[1][2] is legislation under consideration in the United States Congress.
Congress oversees the defense budget primarily through two yearly bills: the defense authorization and defense appropriations bills. The authorization bill determines the agencies responsible for defense, establishes funding levels, and sets the policies under which money will be spent.[3][dead link]
The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 passed the House Armed Services Committee 56-5 on May 10. The bill as reported to the House authorizes $554.2 billion in base Pentagon spending and $88.5 billion for overseas contingency operations (OCO).[4] The bill passed the full House on May 18 by a vote of 299-120.[5]
So as to not have the Act run into the same legal trouble the 2012 version did, the US House included sections 1031 through 1033, which strike the right of “Habeus Corpus” and the Constitutional right of due process for American citizens. Within those sections include references to a federal appeals court decision and a Supreme Court ruling that affirm the Constitutional rights of American citizens.[1] However, there are already criticisms of the Act, especially with regard to a “readiness” and funding for an attack on Iran.[6]
As I recall, the time time line in this matter started with one of the early versions (possibly the administration's version) of the NDAA, which had a provision in it that is now known as the ‘indefinite detention provision.’ At some time in the legislative process the provision got removed from the bill. Immediately, Obama threatened to veto the entire bill if the provision was not included in the bill. He got his way. Our slimy legislators caved and put it back in the bill. When the final bill came out of Congress, the public got extremely upset so he had a bunch of Conservatives like West and other RINOs like McCain and Lindsey Graham go out and blow smoke saying that the NDAA provision really didn't mean what it said and they should know because they were the legislators. Then Obama signs the NDAA into law and includes a ‘signing statement’ wherein he proclaims that he is ‘troubled’ by the ‘indefinite detention’ provision (the one he insisted on being in the bill) and he basically said he did not foresee the need to ever use it against U.S. citizens. He then signed the bill and it became law. Later a bunch of liberals actually got nervous over the provision and sued Obama and the administration over the provision in Fed. Dist. Ct. in New York. The judge, smelling a fox in the chicken coup, put out a demand in court to Obama’s lawyers that if they would make a clear statement on the record that the infamous provision would not be used against U.S. citizens, she would dismiss the plaintiff's case here and now. The lawyers hemmed and hawed before her, trying to get out of the judge's demand saying they could not speak for Obama. She recessed the court to give them time to consult with their client and then repeated her demand several more times but no statement from Obama was ever forthcoming and Obama’s lawyers never called a single witness to testify. The judge ultimately issued the preliminary injunction, enjoining the implementation of the indefinite detention provision. Now (Aug 7), it appears the administration has quietly appealed the judge's ruling trying to get the injunction lifted. Guess what the argument is that they are making - - no standing!! - - - arguing that plaintiffs can not sue until they are locked up by Obama under the provision. Mind you, they are appealing a judge's decision that prevents the use of a provision Obama says he is troubled by and never intends to use in the first place. You do not need to be a rocket scientist to figure this one out. The diabolical lying fox is quietly doing his damnest to keep all his tools in his tool chest to use them against us when the time is right.
http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-indefinite-detention-forrest-070/