The Government Has Gained An Authoritarian Power

The government has gained the ability to detain a U.S. citizen indefinitely for no reason:

I can't believe that nobody's talking about this: The thing Obama signed on New Year's Eve, the new Defense Authorization Act. I don't know if people don't know what's in this or if other things take precedence. Well, it is being reported because I saw it. I saw it reported. Obama signed this thing, the new Defense Authorization Act on New Year's Eve. Folks, you know what this thing does? It allows the United States military to detain anybody for no reason! They don't even have to charge you. I mean, this is specified. This is not the Patriot Act. This is way beyond. This is total authoritarianism. This is the kind of stuff that exists in Third World banana republics. The government can detain anybody! All they have to do... They actually don't have to do anything.

They just have to say they suspect you of terrorism.

They don't have to prove it. They don't have to have any evidence. They can charge you. They can put you away in a jail. You are not allowed a lawyer. You are not allowed habeas corpus. It's the most amazing thing. Obama even issued a signing statement with it in which he said: Don't worry, I'm not going to do this. Don't worry, I'm not gonna do it. Well, he can, as can anybody in the military, as can any future president. They can just decide to detain you.

As noted Obama has put in a statement saying that he disagrees with this, but it was he who wanted this put in the bill:

Obama insisted that he signed the bill simply to keep funding for the troops. It was a continuation of the dishonest treatment of the issue by the White House since the law first came to light. As discussed earlier, the White House told citizens that the president would not sign the NDAA because of the provision. That spin ended after sponsor Senator Carl Levin (Democrat, Michigan) went to the floor and disclosed that it was the White House and insisted that there be no exception for citizens in the indefinite detention provision.

The latest claim is even more insulting. You do not "support our troops" by denying the principles for which they are fighting. They are not fighting to consolidate authoritarian powers in the president. The "American way of life" is defined by our constitution and specifically the bill of rights. Moreover, the insistence that you do not intend to use authoritarian powers does not alter the fact that you just signed an authoritarian measure. It is not the use but the right to use such powers that defines authoritarian systems.[...]

For civil libertarians, the NDAA is our Mayan moment: 2012 is when the nation embraced authoritarian powers with little more than a pause between rounds of drinks.

I have not heard any good justification for this law. Not long ago I probably would have said that this is necessary to fight the war on terrorism, but this appears to me to be going beyond fighting the war on terror and violates the Constitution by being a power grab by a government that is led by "rulers" who have authoritarian inclinations. The ability of the government to detain people indefinitely for no reason is a salient characteristic of an authoritarian government. I don't expect the government to immediately start rounding people up, but this does set a new precedent for the use of government power that does not have very well defined limits: it depends on how you define terrorism. I know that when you start talking about authoritarianism and the government gaining too much power that this will cause some people to immediately dismiss this as a conspiracy theory or crazy talk, but the unwillingness of people to overcome normalcy bias and to contemplate things outside the realm of their experience is how governments are able to slowly acquire new powers like this.