The NDAA and our civil liberties

Wayne Bowen's column concerning civil liberties and the NDAA demands a response.

Bowen claims the NDAA "specifically prohibits" the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens by the U.S. military. This claim belies a fundamental misunderstanding of both modal logic and statutory interpretation. Bowen rests his conclusion on a passage from the NDAA itself which states: "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States." Sadly for Bowen, the negation of a requirement is not the same thing as a prohibition.

To say that "X is not required to do Y" in no way entails that "X is prohibited from doing Y." You see, a previous section of the NDAA requires that a certain class of persons be held by the military. The passage Bowen cites allows for the possibility that a citizen detained under the NDAA will be transferred from military to civilian custody. Nothing in the bill requires such a transfer, and nothing "specifically prohibits" the indefinite military detention of a citizen. But it gets worse for Bowen's view of the world. A Senate amendment to the NDAA specifically prohibiting indefinite detention of citizens was defeated.

How serious a threat the NDAA is to our civil liberties is an open question, and President Obama's signing statement says he will not authorize detention without trial of citizens. But to assert that there is no threat and that "we continue to enjoy the same legal protections" is grossly mistaken.

HAMNER HILL, Cape Girardeau