The Wall Street Journal's NDAA Editorial Is Flawed

I wasn’t going to address this, but since it is an editorial published in The Wall Street Journal — and not on some WordPress blog — I will do so.

On April 29, the newspaper published an opinion piece criticising those who are opposed to the NDAA’s imprisonment without trial of American citizens provisions. The editorial is so conservative that it would actually be funny, if it were not in fact real. It’d be hilarious if it were penned by someone like Stephen Colbert, in jest.

First paragraph: “The tea party movement has generally been constructive, but every so often it runs off the road. A case in point is its emerging condominium with the anti-antiterror left to block terrorist detentions.”

Yes, The Wall Street Journal just used the phrase “anti-antiterror left.” That’s intense.

Moving downward: “This modest law has sprouted a burst of political delusion in several states and Congress. A tea party outfit called the Tenth Amendment centre calls the law ‘an unconstitutional and dangerous federal power grab’—though the statute merely codifies existing practice under Presidents Bush and Obama.”

Modest law? Modest?!

Here’s how the ACLU has characterised the NDAA: “On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed the National defence Authorization Act (NDAA), codifying indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history. The NDAA’s dangerous detention provisions would authorise the president — and all future presidents — to order the military to pick up and indefinitely imprison people captured anywhere in the world, far from any battlefield.”

Yeah, sounds modest to me.

Speaking of the ACLU — that filthy liberal bastion of civil rights defenders (yes, sarcasm) — this is an actual quote from later in the Journal’s op-ed: “The ACLU tea partiers may be well-intentioned but they are woefully uninformed about the war on the terror.”

Yes, now that the Tea Party is concerned about the absolutely devastating, and rapid, rollback of American civil rights under Obama, are powerful mainstream media outlets like the Journal threatened and feel the need to mock them?

Who knows, but this I know: The media is supposed to be a safeguard against government power grabs, not a cheerleader of them. This editorial could have done much more to raise awareness for a serious issue that must be addressed by Congress.

NOW WATCH: Briefing videos

Business Insider Emails & Alerts

Site highlights each day to your inbox.

Follow Business Insider Australia on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Instagram.