The Hidden Truth About The NDAA 2021 

By Derrick Broze

The U.S. Senate recently voted 84 to 13 in favor of the 2021 version of the annual military budget, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The Senate’s vote follows a 335 to 78 vote by the House of Representatives. Despite promises of a veto from Donald Trump, the bill currently has a veto-proof two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate. Trump has until December 23rd to decide if he try to veto the $740.5 billion bill.

Most of the media discussion about the 2021 NDAA has revolved around two issues: Trump’s opposition to renaming military bases named after Confederate war heroes and the battle over Section 230 of the Communication Act.

Trump has stated that his admin “will not even consider the renaming of these Magnificent and Fabled Military Installations”. He also threatened to veto the massive spending bill if Section 230 of the Communication Act was not “completely terminated” to allow internet providers and Big Tech companies like Facebook and Twitter to be held legally liable for the content on their websites. Trump has argued the social media giants should be treated like publishers to reduce online censorship or deletion of content falsely labeled “misinformation”.

While the discussions about the names of military bases and Section 230 arguably have their place in a discussion on the 2021 NDAA, an exclusive focus on these topics ignores troubling concerns in the remainder of the bill.

Indefinite War, Indefinite Detention

White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany stated that Trump is concerned about a provision in the bill relating to troop withdrawal and deployment in Afghanistan, South Korea, and Germany. The NDAA includes amendments that seek to block planned troop drawdowns from Afghanistan and Germany. If these new amendments are included in the bill it would require a review from several government agencies prior to any future troop withdrawals.

On December 10, Senator Rand Paul spoke out about provisions in the NDAA 2021, stating that the new bill would prevent future presidents from being able to withdraw troops without consulting with Congress first. Paul said these provisions would prolong the failed War on Terror.

Another product of the War on Terror (aka the War on Freedom) is a provision contained in the NDAA which was originally included in the 2011 version of the bill. Some readers may recall that since 2011 the NDAA has included a provision which allows for indefinite detention of American citizens without a right to trial. The bill was signed into law by former President Obama and the indefinite detention provision is still contained in the NDAA, having been approved by Congress every year since it first passed.

When the indefinite detention clause was first included there were many mainstream news reports discussing the dangerous potential for the provision. There were dozens of politicians speaking out and even a federal lawsuit that ultimately failed to remove the provision. However, as we approach 2021 there is hardly a mention of the indefinite detention clause anywhere in corporate media. Unfortunately, there appears to be very few in the political world willing to speak up about the issue.

One of the few to speak up during the recent round of voting is Justin Amash, a Libertarian representing Michigan’s 3rd Congressional District. Amash has consistently spoken out against the indefinite detention clause. On December 8, he spoke out again, tweeting, “Voted no on the NDAA. Voted no on all the NDAAs. Bring home the troops. Stop indefinite detention without charge or trial. Fight the military-industrial complex.”

Read more 

Be the first to comment.

 

Blogger's note:  subterrnews.blogspot.com does not send cookies, or collect any information on those using the blog.  However, the blogspot is on google, and google may collect information, and send cookies.  Many of the links that  we connect to do not send out cookies or collect information, but some do.  You are keying in to this blog, and you have agreed to this.

The views expressed in the articles do not necessarily represent the opinions of this blog.  They are the views, and opinions of the author(s) of the article.