Conor Friedersdorf in the Atlantic: The story in Politico shed some light on the origins of the NDAA changes in conference committee: Gee, maybe the President will veto it this time.
Why is anyone surprised? Over the past 10+ years the first five amendments have all but been ignored or completely abandoned, so sadly, this isn't a surprise.
If they won't respect the Constitution, which explicitly forbids this, why would they respect some chintzy language bolted into a new defense Act? They don't need to add it as the practice is unlawful on its face. Like RB said, totally invalid. They have the power, they can do whatever they want. But it would be pure tyranny if they do it.
