The National Defense Authorization Act Opens the Door to a Police State


The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was recently approved by an overwhelming majority of the Senate. It will place domestic terror investigations and interrogations into the hands of the military and which would open the door for trial-free, indefinite detention of anyone, including American citizens, so long as the government calls them terrorists. This law is diametrically opposed to the rights provided by the Constitution and opens the door to an effective police state. Forbes (of all magazines) describes it as the “greatest threat to liberties Americans face”. Here’s an article from The New American describing the law.


Senate Passes Controversial Defense Bill

In the midst of allegations of police brutality and police aggression at the OWS protests, the U.S. Senate approved a bill that is said to “explicitly create a police state”: the National Defense Authorization Act. The NDAA, passed by a vote of 93 to 7, virtually stated that all of the United States may be considered a battlefield, and therefore the American military is permitted to indefinitely detain any American perceived to be a threat.

Several amendments were proposed by both Democrats and Republican Senators, which would have deleted the dangerous provisions that would allow the indefinite detention of American citizens. While most of those amendments were overwhelming voted down, a single compromise amendment was passed that was intended to quell fears that American citizens may be imprisoned indefinitely, though skeptics remain uncomfortable with the final outcome.

According to, sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA will:

1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;

(2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and

(3) Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice. adds:

A provision of S. 1867, or the National Defense Authorization Act bill, written by Senators John McCain and Carl Levin, declares American soil a battlefield and allows the President and all future Chief Executives to order the military to arrest and detain American citizens, innocent or not, without charge or trial. In other words, if this bill passes and the President signs it, OWS protesters or any American could end up arrested and indefinitely locked up by the military without the guaranteed right to due process or a speedy trial.

Both Senators Mark Udall (D) and Rand Paul (R) proposed amendments to the bill that would have weakened the more dangerous provisions. Udall’s amendment would have eliminated provisions regarding the handling of terrorism suspects, while Paul’s amendment had far more teeth and would have struck 1031 from the legislation altogether. Neither amendment made it into the Senate-passed version of the bill; the Udall amendment was overwhelmingly rejected by a vote of 37 to 61.

“The United States Senate has a solemn obligation to our men and women in uniform to pass a Defense Authorization Act, but we also owe it to those fighting the war on terror to prevent rushed, untested and legally controversial limitations on their operations. I can’t support provisions that I believe will hurt our national security,” Udall said prior to the vote. “We haven’t had time to adequately consider these provisions. We need to know what our military and intelligence experts — and our men and women in the field — actually need to most effectively prosecute the war on terror, especially before we change detainee provisions that are already working. I’m urging my colleagues to support my amendment so we can prevent a White House veto, move forward with the NDAA and reach a workable resolution on the detainee provisions.”

Senator Dianne Feinstein of California also proposed an amendment that would have limited mandatory military custody for suspected terrorists captured outside the United States, but that amendment was rejected as well by a vote of 45-55. A second amendment proposed by Feinstein that would have prohibited U.S. citizens from being held in indefinite detention without being charged or brought to a trial failed by a vote of 45 to 55.

In the end, Senators Feinstein and Lindsey Graham worked out a deal to pass an amendment that states, “Nothing in 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.” That compromise amendment passed 99 to 1, with only Senator Jon Kyl voting against it.

As noted by the Huffington Post:

The passage may head off a showdown with the White House, which had threatened to veto the entire bill on the grounds that the section on detentions tied the hands of counterterrorism officials in law enforcement and the military….

Left unresolved by the new language is just exactly what is constitutional when it comes to detaining American citizens in the United States. But opponents of the original provision said at least it would remain up to judges, not politicians.

“To this day the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether it is constitutional to indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen captured in the United States. Some of my colleagues see this differently, [but] the language we’ve agreed on makes it clear,” said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who had been adamantly opposed to giving the military what he saw as greater reign over Americans at home.

“The Supreme Court will decide who can be detained; the United States Senate will not,” Durbin said.

One amendment seemed to pass without issue: Senator McCain’s amendment to provide for greater cyber-security collaboration between the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. In other words, not only is all of the United States a battlefield, but so is the Internet.

During debate on the Senate floor, Senator Paul confronted John McCain, asking, “Would it be possible that an American citizen can then be declared an enemy combatant and sent to Guantanamo Bay and detained indefinitely?” McCain responded, “As long as that individual, no matter who they are, poses a threat to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue that threat.”

Judge Andrew Napolitano, host of Fox Business Network’s Freedom Watch called McCain’s response “nonsensical and unconstitutional.”

In a live stream, Rand Paul addressed the American people, asserting the dangerous nature of the NDAA:

James Madison, father of the Constitution warned, “The means of defense against foreign danger historically become instruments of tyranny at home”…. During war, there has always been a struggle to preserve constitutional liberties…. Rights given up now cannot be expected to be returned, so we do well to contemplate the diminishment of due process knowing that the rights we lose now may never be restored.

Debate on the legislation came to an end on Wednesday when the Senate voted on the cloture motion, paving the way for today’s vote.

Without an amendment to the bill, Americans faced a blow to their constitutional rights because the NDAA, as observed by Republican Congressman Justin Amash, allows the executive branch the power to determine who is a terrorist, whether they are a U.S. citizen or not. And without clarity on the language, that threat remains in place. “Note that [the provision] does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary,” Amash wrote on his Facebook page.

The bill had the support of both Senate Republicans as well as some Democrats. In support of this bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explained that the bill would “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.”

“It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next. And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer,’” Graham said.

The original NDAA has already been passed in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives with nary a whimper by a 322-96 vote. With this new compromise amendment, the House and Senate will now have to combine the two bills, and Senate leaders have given assurances that the Senate’s new language will remain, but that is not guaranteed.

President Obama, however, has threatened to veto the bill. A statement released by the White House reads:

“Any bill that challenges or constrains the President’s critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the Nation would prompt the President’s senior advisers to recommend a veto,” the White House said in a statement.

The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision,” the White House said, noting that it could apply to people in the United States. That “would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets.”

However, not everyone is convinced. Daphne Eviator of the Human Rights First’s Law and Security Program said, “Whether he [Obama] will [veto the bill] is a difficult question because, politically, it’s difficult to veto a defense spending bill that 680 pages long and includes authorization to spend on a whole range of military programs.”

The American Civil Liberties Union, disoriented by the compromise, said the President should veto the bill because the military still acquires too much power through the bill’s provisions. “The bill is an historic threat to American citizens and others because it expands and makes permanent the authority of the president to order the military to imprison without charge or trial American citizens,” said ACLU senior legislative counsel Christopher Anders in a statement.

“The final amendment to preserve current detention restrictions could turn out to be meaningless and Sens. [Carl] Levin [Michigan Democrat] and Graham made clear that they believe this power to use the military against American citizens will not be affected by the new language,” Anders said. “This bill puts military detention authority on steroids and makes it permanent. If it becomes law, American citizens and others are at real risk of being locked away by the military without charge or trial.”
– Source: The New American

The only hope against this law is a Presidential veto. You can sign the petition for a Presidential veto of NDAA at the White House website.

Subscribe to the Newsletter

Get an email notification as soon as a new article is published on the site.

Support VC


Leave a Comment

157 Comments on "The National Defense Authorization Act Opens the Door to a Police State"

newest oldest most voted

Enemy of the country and freedom . Why is the military letting obama take away our freedom . Because they are obamas puppets and they will kill you if he wishes ..

No one mentions the "93-7" ratio Senate vote symbolism? To me that says 36 to 7 or in otherwords Satan vs God or just plane Evil vs Good… Just something from a numerology dude.

I guess we need to hope and pray that the germans will come and save us as their repayment for helping them from Hitler.

Immigrants come to this opportunity.. yes..

But its a bit ignorant to say that's all they all want. A country would be stupid not to go into a country stupid enough to put all it's barriers down, become a citizen with ease (not even needing to learn english to do so) and cause any havoc they want. If there is, a "terrorist" in our country, letting it go through trial almost sounds moronic. Lets lets the guy float around and debate about it til we prove its true? yeah no? There's good and bad people in this word immigrants or not.

I'm not confident your article is accurate. I looked up Senate Bill 1867 which is the NDAA and it specifically states it does not apply to American citizens or US legal residents. I think we've fallen into the conspiratorial hype but it's understandable seeing that this was enacted when the economy is poor and more and more news are dedicated to veterans and a new movie about 9/11 with Julia Roberts and Tom Hanks being released. Anyway, here is the section I am referring to about halfway down: (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require11 ment to detain a person in military custody under 12 this section does not extend to citizens of the United 13 States. 14 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require15 ment to detain a person in military custody under 16 this section does not extend to a lawful resident 17 alien of the United States on the basis of… Read more »

oops nvm the dates got mixed up here

No responses since the 10th… Shouldn't we be talking even more about this?? It got signed on New Year's Eve while Baraka was in Hawaii… very suspect. And still barely coverage on it. wtf??

In response to what 'Me' up at the top said: "I’m from Europe and these days they are discussing possible measures for saving the Euro currency. Probably one of them is The U.S.E.- United States of Europe. All countries will lose sovereignty and the Big Brother in Bruxelles, together with the IMF and other elite banks will “watch over” everyone. Think about it, they have replaced the prime-ministers of Italy and Greece with members of the Trilateral Commission- Mario Monti and Lucas Papademos." You know who also wanted a 'United States of Europe?' Yeah… that's right. Hitler.. Look it up, that was one of his dreams before he lost the War and supposedly committed suicide… the Spirit of Nazism is still well and alive… and some say that Hitler didn't even die at his own hands, but fled to South America, where many Nazis fled after the war.. (also documented)..… Read more »
@everyone who doubts the FACTS that a large majority of the men who signed the declaration of independence were freemasons….. Please please please, go away. Just stop it, go away, and don't come back until you stop looking where the puppeteers want you to look. PLEASE! just stop And on the subject of it all. I'm not going to try and provide elaborate proof of whether our country is or is not based upon freemasonry. What I can say is this basic point that permeates beyond all aspects of the debate. From everything we learn and absorb from articles on here analyzing the general structure, style, and message of all of these secretive forces, one thing we've learned peering into the world of mind control and illusion manipulation, is that sometimes false liberation, artificial freedom, or granted relief, can all be part of the total control that is occurring. Using… Read more »

We've been lead to believe that N America is the handler of England. It's complicated like the usual the egg or the chicken came first?

You All Need To Wake Up.This Is Good News It's For The Safety Of Our Children And Families.

What IS it with the word(s) “Detained” and “Detainment” and “Detention”?? These are bullshit softening terms replacing the reality of Arrest, Incarceration, Imprisonment —and the like. a "detainee" is a PRISONER: with no rights, protection, safety, respect or hope. Think about that. Let that *in*. —And; BTW: there are no such things “Constitutional Rights”. There are are only Human Rights. We, each of us, across the planet, have them. The Constitution for the United States of America, along with the so-called Bill of Rights, secures Human Rights that we already possess from the Sacred Moment that we draw BREATH; with the Bill of Rights primarily being a list of restrictions meant to severely reduce the power of government to take away your God-granted Human Rights. “Constitutional Rights” suggests that, somehow, the Constitution grants you something … it does NOT. It was never supposed to and cannot "grant" that which you… Read more »

The NDAA only goes to further stifle our Constitutional Rights without the approval of the Americans, just as the Patriot Act was adopted WITHOUT public approval or vote just weeks after the events of 9/11. A mere 3 criminal charges of terrorism a year are attributed to this act, which is mainly used for no-knock raids leading to drug-related arrests without proper cause for search and seizure. The laws are simply a means to spy on our own citizens and to detain and torture dissidents without trial or a right to council. You can read much more about living in this Orwellian society of fear and see my visual response to these measures on my artist’s blog at

I started a petition to repeal this act. At the very least, it will bring attention to the unconstitutionality of this law. Please sign and spread. Thank you very much.

I beg to differ, this bill doesn't open a door to a police state, in reality the people of the US are already living in a police state, what it does do is open the door to a military dictatorship………….

Well, Obama didn't veto this bill. Here's the link:

I am confused. Should we focus on the Founding Fathers beliefs or should we focus how they freed America? Without them, will the USA become free? Or will your grandparents be the slaves of the British? The founding fathers went through lots of hardship to give you guys a free land. However, you guys are just saying, "Oh these people are masons, they are evil!!" However have you looked at what they done for USA?

Indeed, what most of the American people don't realize (and that includes a bulk of our Congressmen) is that any power or authority not explicitly prohibited is actually allowed. So, yes, this NDAA allows for extensive abuse of authority, absolute tyranny, and a even a dictatorial (or more likely, a U.N.) takeover.

The existence of freedom in the world is on the decline.

I would love to see VC's view on this article or if ever possible a collaboration between the DW and VC or if ever possible between the three of them!! I definitely thing a lot of their previous research, articles and views are very similar and would be even more confirmation on the whole NWO, illuminatti armageddon stuff that are discussed on all of these journalist's sites and in this following article.

hahaha man, im from canada and that's some crazy government lol. but hey, canada is what poland was to germany. the first nation to fall to usa. mexico is much more difficult. they will be backed by most latin countries.

now they will arrest all the Muslims and blacks blaming them as terrorists.

Opens the door to a police state? We're already IN a police state.

The symbol of The app store in apple gadgets is a masonic sign. Check it out

what. the. hell.

So, what I want to know, is what are we going to do? We know what's going on………..

Whatever we always do. Just move on and get on with it.

I'm scared for meself honestly.

I really am.