Talk:National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013

New page
Since the U.S. House just passed the FY13 NDAA last week, I thought it needed to have a page. I am a prospective graduate student with an interest in national security and defense issues, so I follow these issues as they go through Congress. I'll probably add some of the key provisions included later on. Morgan164 (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Indefinite detention provision
How come the indefinite detention provision isn't mentioned here? I mean, the case hasn't gone to the Supreme Court yet so it'll still be possible for the Supreme Court to find it Constitutional, which would change the entire landscape of this country, how states' rights are perceived and how we organize foreign policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.251.213 (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Currently, the article says that Sections 1031 through 1033 "strike the right of habeas corpus and the Constitutional right of due process for American citizens." However, no citation is given making this claim. Quite the opposite, several subsequent sources--including the full text of HR 4310--indicate that Sections 1031 through 1033 actually reaffirmboth the writ of habeas corpus and the constitutional rights of American citizens, as well as citing relevant Supreme Court cases and previous legislation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkamouflage (talk • contribs) 14:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is the text that makes me agree with the writer above, 1033 DOES NOT 'STRIKE THE RIGHT" BUT AFFIRMS THE RIGHT!! SEE excerpt form on line of passed text below gotten from this link:

SEC. 1033. PROHIBITION ON THE INDEFINITE DETENTION OF CITIZENS AND LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS. Section 4001 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following: ‘(b)(1) An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention. ‘(2) Paragraph (1) applies to an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority enacted before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2013. ‘(3) Paragraph (1) shall not be construed to authorize the detention of a citizen of the United States, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, or any other person who is apprehended in the United States.’.24.23.216.193 (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe there are serious formatting, grammar and content issues with this article. The final bill was 1,613 pages long, but emphasis here is placed on 10 lines. The NDAA is an important piece of legislation that deserves a more scholarly treatment. I hope to be able to provide that in the near future. Paratrooper450 (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

References section
I made a new section in the article, and the references section no longer displays properly. Sorry.  petrarchan47  t  c   22:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

NDAA 2013 signed, with signing statement
Leaving these refs here, feel free to add, or I'll come back and do so shortly.  petrarchan47  t  c   22:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Obama signing statement "Even though I support the vast majority of the provisions contained in [NDAA] I do not agree with them all"
 * Obama signs NDAA 2013 without objecting to indefinite detention of Americans
 * from ACLU "Bill Further Entrenches Indefinite Detention and Unfair Trials at Guantanamo "


 * The sources have been included into the article on 5 January 2013. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm looking for some good secondary sources discussing the signing statement. If understand correctly, the POTUS admitted in it that parts of the bill are unconstitutional.  petrarchan47  t  c   21:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You understand incorrectly. Nothing in the bill is unconstitutional and instead of edit warring me, you may want to actually read the text of the law and understand that there is nothing suspicious going on. &mdash; talk § _Arsenic99_  04:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

NDAA 2013 does not make legal dissemination of propaganda.
I removed the section titled "Ban on domestic propaganda" because that is a highly misleading title based on misinterpretation of the law.

The law specifically states:


 * NDAA 2013 (HR 4310, Section 1078 (c)) does not make legal the dissemination of propaganda within the US that the Smith-Mundt Act has outlawed: "No funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors shall be used to influence public opinion in the United States.

If you read HR 4310 Section 1078 (c), you will find that there is no such legalization.

In plenty of this section there is information about "use of information intended for foreign audiences abroad about the United States." So this allowed the State Department for example to create videos in Arabic targeted for oppressive regimes that were suppressing the Arab Spring.

The only thing that changed was the allowance of specific state department materials to be released that has nothing to do with domestic propaganda or domestic opinion.

&mdash; talk § _Arsenic99_  19:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@ &mdash; talk §: I will reverse your edit in order to rewrite the section. Until it's done, please and all other's don't reverse my edits. Thanks in advance. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I concluded the rewritting of the "Ban on domestic propaganda" section. The section now reflects not only the above cited statement that the NDAA 2013 does not make legal dissemination of propaganda, but it also shows the advantages and disadvantages of the Smith-Mundt Modrernization Act of 2012. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the attempt sir, but the problem is that you are still using misleading headlines, bad sources like RussiaToday and Buzzfeed and are not providing evidence that there is such disadvantages. Try another rewrite &mdash; talk § _Arseni<b style="color:#0077FF;">c99</b>_  04:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you need to prove at the RS noticeboard that these sources are being misused.   petrarchan47  t  c   05:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * They are. RT is Russian-funded propaganda. It is not a reliable source in any part of the world except Russia. In addition, this is completely a US issue and so citing the biggest rival Russia, on a US topic is the most insane thing you can do. On top of that the whole title for the subsection is misleading. Feel free to take parts of the "deleted" area that have better sources with a more proper title that isn't misleading. You are misleading people and spreading false information by claiming that some "ban" was lifted when it wasn't. I have clearly shown as cited above that the law itself does not lift any sort of "ban on domestic propaganda." If you want to contest that, find some evidence in the law itself, not any blogs. &mdash; talk § _<b style="color:#FF0000">Ars</b><b style="color:#FFFFFF;">eni</b><b style="color:#0077FF;">c99</b>_  05:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You didn't understand my request. Your opinion and talking points are of no consequence. There is a noticeboard for discussing what sources can be used, and in what context. Please suggest the wording you think would be more appropriate, and bring sources to support your work. Editors can discuss it here, and add the improved bit to the article once agreement has been reached. You can also search the history at the RS noticeboard to see what has been decided about Russia Today. To save you some time, the conclusion seems to be that it is considered RS - except for matters related to Russia specifically. But reliability is decided on a case-by-case basis for the claims being made. This is why I am asking you to bring this issue there.   petrarchan47  t  c   05:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * And I told you multiple times that you can put in edits yourself and include valid sources. RussiaToday is not a valid source whether you think some noticeboard decided something is of no consequence because it is not a rational position to use RussiaToday as a source of US laws because RussiaToday is Russian propaganda funded by the Russian government which is currently in great diplomatic tensions with the US. What you are doing is wrong. &mdash; talk § _<b style="color:#FF0000">Ars</b><b style="color:#FFFFFF;">eni</b><b style="color:#0077FF;">c99</b>_  06:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Please keep your talk page comments to me on this page, and not my personal talk page. What's with "multiple times"? I've known of you for all of 30 minutes. If you feel the RS noticeboard is of no consequence, I see no reason to have any further conversation with you. See also WP:AGF   petrarchan47  t  c   06:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well you don't seem to be listening and you don't seem to want to discuss the topic itself and you are distracting from the issue. But if that is the case, I will still listen to you. I will no longer revert your edit, because I know that eventually someone will come along and remove your citations and put in the facts from the Smith-Mundt act itself and prove to you that RussiaToday saying "it might" lead to domestic-propaganda is not reality, just a wild opinion by anti-American sources. &mdash; talk § _<b style="color:#FF0000">Ars</b><b style="color:#FFFFFF;">eni</b><b style="color:#0077FF;">c99</b>_  06:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the claim: [quote]:NDAA 2013 (HR 4310, Section 1078 (c)) does not make legal the dissemination of propaganda within the US that the Smith-Mundt Act has outlawed: "No funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors shall be used to influence public opinion in the United States.[/quote] There is a distinction between saying its illegal, and saying you can't use funding from certain sources to do it, therefore your quote is not relevant. All that is relevant is if it allows the information to be disseminated within the US, which it does. [quote]Section 208 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1986 and 1987 (22 U.S.C. 1461–1a) is amended to read as follows .... This section shall not prohibit or delay the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors from providing information about its operations, policies, programs, or program material, or making such available, to the media, public, or Congress, ... Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors from engaging in any medium or form of communication, either [b]directly[/b] or indirectly, because a United States domestic audience is or may be thereby exposed to program material, or based on a [b]presumption of such exposure[/b]. Such [b]material may be made available within the United States and disseminated[/b], when appropriate, pursuant to sections 502 and 1005 of the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1462 and 1437), except that nothing in this section may be construed to authorize the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors to disseminate within the United States any program material prepared for dissemination abroad on or before the effective date of section 1078 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. [/quote] It quite clearly does authorize domestic distribution... all they have to do is say it was intended for foreign distribution, and they can fund it from the otherwise prohibited sources as wellBicelPhD (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Quality issues with Smith-Mundt Revision section
So, I did what I usually do when starting to research something and checked it out on Wikipedia. The section about the Smith-Mundt Revision is dense, unclear and confusing. I'm not entirely confident that the sources used are "good". (I'm sure there's a Wikipedia standard of sources and I am totally ignorant of it.) I noticed there was a period of opposing revisions and possibly quite a bit of conflict a few years ago.

I'd like to contribute to make this section clear and accurate for others who just want to know what the changes were and how the changes affect them. I'm concerned that doing this would be like kicking the hornets nest. Does anyone have any advice about how to proceed? -- Zaryn (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * @Zaryn, yes, there are legitimate concerns about the quality of sources. One in particular that I believe should be removed is to the site Occupy Corporatism. It is cited as a source of reporting, yet the piece includes unsupported claims. The whole site looks much less like a news source than a glorified blogging platform for just one user. His "False Flag Ops" section should set off any alarm bells for anyone wanting Wikipedia to not rely on questionable sources. Mjpl (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)