President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.Needless to say, Romero is a fool.
The following are some notes I highlighted from an article at opinionjuris
Funds for Gitmo to close are gone.
Even so, enactment of section 1022, ambiguous and potentially toothless though it may be, is not without costs.
It is also worth emphasizing, however, that the Obama Administration, civil liberties and human rights organizations, and some members of Congress worked tirelessly and quite effectively to improve the final bill dramatically from the versions the Senate and (especially) the House had earlier passed. Because of those efforts, Subtitle D of the NDAA is not nearly as problematic as many critics have suggested. Indeed, the final bill actually contains a handful of provisions that improve upon current law, and one—which will be our focus here—that helps to resolve an important interpretive debate about whether the Executive’s detention authority under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) should be informed and limited by the laws of war.
What is more, those robust efforts to improve the legislation resulted in several provisions that will be distinct improvements vis-a-vis the status quo.
- being able to send Gitmo people home