In classrooms across the United States, students marvel at the enlightened ideas of the founding fathers and the ideals of liberty that shaped our society. We feel pride in the certainty that we will always have such essential rights as free speech and fair trial when accused of a crime. But we were disillusioned by President Obama’s signing of the National Defense Authorization Act for the fiscal year 2012, expanding military power by authorizing the US Military to detain civilians, even Americans citizens, without trial.

The NDAA, which has been enacted every year for the past 49 years detailing the yearly budget and spending of the US Department of Defense, was signed on Dec. 31 with new provisions. The newly added controversial provisions, most notably sections 1021 and 1022, authorize the Armed Forces to detain people, including U.S. citizens, suspected of supporting terrorism or being terrorists “without trial until the end of the hostilities.” The law defines a suspect as “a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”

This definition is vague — what if you befriended someone in high school who went on to join the Taliban? If you unknowingly invited him to your house for dinner after he had joined would that qualify as supporting terrorist “associated forces”? It’s hard to exclaim “Of course not!” when the law leaves it up for interpretation. Obama has pledged his administration will interpret section 1021 in “a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.” He attempted to clarify his feelings regarding certain provisions in his signing statement, saying, “I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations.” But the fact remains that this act is now law, and permanent, while the presidency might soon change hands to an administration that might not share Obama’s scruples.

“Innocent until proven guilty” is the foundation of the American justice system. The phrase embodies an essential value of our society — a citizen’s rights to a fair trial as guaranteed in the sixth amendment. This law completely undermines that and puts the detention of suspected terrorists over the rights and liberties of innocent citizens.

Supporters of this act argue that different rules apply in wartime and take precedence over criminal procedures. “We’re not fighting a crime, we’re fighting a war,” Republican senator Lindsey Graham argued in a speech on the floor of the US Senate. There is a belief that in wartime it becomes necessary to limit citizen’s rights for the safety of the country. “We’re not going to take you to a criminal court because that is not in our national security interests,” the senator said.

This opinion has been put forward in the past, when people have felt unsafe, leading to hasty decisions we hold in contempt today. The bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941 caused an outbreak of fear that turned into hatred and discrimination against Japanese-Americans. In response the federal government forced thousands of Japanese-Americans into internment camps, many of whom had been born in the United States and had never once been to Japan. Internees’ rights relating to trials, searches, and bail were ignored, and they were denied equal protection under the law. But in 1988 President Reagan signed legislation that formally apologized for this “grave injustice” that “was caused by race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.”

The September 11 attacks spawned a similar reaction. As a result of terrorism paranoia President Bush signed the USA Patriot Act on October 26, 2001, which increased intrusive surveillance on US citizens, allowing wiretapping and the monitoring of emails along with increased access to medical and financial records of suspected terrorists. It also allowed “delayed notice” search warrants, warrants that allow law enforcement to search houses without informing their occupants until a later date. A Justice Department audit of the FBI on March 9, 2007 concluded “we believe the improper or illegal uses we found involve serious misuses of national security letter authorities.”

The fright caused in both above instances turned Americans against themselves, and led to laws being passed that infringe on human rights because of war terror and xenophobia. The revisions in the NDAA possess similar potential for abuse. It is vital that we learn from our history and do not repeat the mistakes of the past with the National Defense Authorization Act.

From Obama’s failure to close Guantanamo to his positions on executive power and security issues, the president has already disappointed civil liberties groups. In response to his signing of the NDAA, Human Right’s Watch declared, “President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.” Many of Obama’s ardent supporters are young adults with faith in the president’s promises of protecting liberty. His actions may have cost him their vote.

The freedoms possessed by citizens are a fundamental part of American society. There are many ways to fight a war, but giving up our values as the longest lasting democratic society should never have been up for debate.

A version of this article first appeared in the Jan. 27, 2012 print edition of The Lowell.