On Dec. 31, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was signed into law. Among the provisions of the act was a section detailing the power of the president to detain, without trial, those suspected of being affiliated with terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda. This provision allows near infinite executive power and very nearly infringes upon several Constitutional rights held dear by most Americans.

At first glance, the bill does not really seem to do anything new. The president already claimed the power to indefinitely detain members of Al Qaeda without trial, as partially evidenced by Guantanamo Bay. The NDAA seems to merely reaffirm this power. However, there are several important distinctions between this legislation and previous anti-terrorism laws.

First, in the past, the president has interpreted legislation in such a way as to make indefinite detention without trial legal. However, it was never explicitly stated to be allowed. The NDAA represents a specific stamp of approval of this action by Congress. Any shaky legal ground that President Obama was working on has now solidified substantially.

However, the more frightening part of this legislation is its provisions allowing “the legal authority to keep people suspected of terrorism in military custody, indefinitely and without trial.” This language, and other language within the bill, changes the requirements so that a person does not need to be suspected of actual membership to be detained. He need only be suspected of supporting terrorism. Such provisions will essentially allow the executive office of the president to bypass existing Constitutional rights to due process and presumption of innocence. Unlike most criminal charges, where you must have a trial date set and charges filed, those suspected of terrorism can be held in a military court indefinitely, without being charged with a crime, until “the end of the conflict.” That is, until the end of the War on Terror.

The biggest issue with this is the degree to which it eliminates normal safeguards against government totalitarianism. Because there is no trial required, there is no one to say whether or not the suspicion of terrorist affiliation is correct. Because there is no trial, this bill is the equivalent of “guilty until proven innocent.” What is the difference between indefinite suspension waiting for a trial that may never be set and being put in prison on presumption of guilt?

The fact of the matter is that there is no real constitutional or moral justification for such legislation. Some argue that the president needs greater power to combat the new threat that terrorism poses, but if we compromise our values in order to win the War on Terror, it will be too late. They will have won as soon as fear pushes us to abandon the ideals that have made America what it is today. If winning such a war requires us to become a less free America, it will be a hollow victory indeed.