The Bill of Rights, as any American is well aware, grants US citizens the right to a trial by jury. Furthermore, a citizen has the right to due process of law. These are fundamental rights to our American democracy. They guarantee that a citizen be tried in courts fairly, because being deprived of liberty or life is what is at stake. Without these rights, who is safe from false prosecution? American citizens surely are not.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was signed into law for the 2012 New Year. The bill oversees the defense of the country and, as the New York Times states, authorizes $662 million in military spending. Great. Appropriating money that the US does not have on overseas wars that many Americans don’t remember the reasons as to why we are fighting. With that aside, whether you agree with the war effort or not, every citizen should be concerned with this next tidbit.
The NDAA makes no distinction between American citizens and terrorists. It is broad enough to encompass both groups. Thus, it not only enables Americans to be tried in military courts, but it also gives the possibility of indefinite military detention without a trial, as if we are not citizens. As the DailyBeast relays, the NDAA subjects us to the will of those in power, with no protection, because it deprives us of due process of law.
We needn’t be concerned though according to the New York Times, because President Obama promises that he would never actually ever put this into effect, by authorizing "the indefinite military detention of American citizens”. I don’t know about you, but the president’s words in no way comfort me. Simply put, actions speak louder than words.
Imagine you are a school teacher who cares about education across the globe. As part of your charity work, you send boxes of books to schools overseas, specifically to the Middle East, because of your ancestral ties. You, an American citizen, are now suspect of terrorism. Should you be worried? You might say no, because you can go to Federal court and be tried according to due process. Under this procedure you would surely win your case. Unfortunately, due to the National Defense Authorization Act, the scenario I just described to you could easily not turn out in your favor.
If our government does not plan on ever using the NDAA as justification for imprisoning American citizens, then why does the act even allow for there to be that possibility? This is a prime example of how pieces of our founding legislation, like the Bill of Rights, are being negated. Where do the “limits on federal power”, as phrased by Ron Paul, come from? It seems as though American liberties are being diminished. At least we live in the "Land of the Fr...", well at least we live.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe scenario you describe could easily fit hundreds of people around the country. You are exactly right when you say that the NDAA is negating our bill of rights. They are supposed to be the foundation of our rights as citizens but it seems like the government has forgotten about that. Also, yes, why would they put the clause in the act where we, as American citizens, can be detained indefinitely if they had no plans to use it as such? This is a prime example of, well I wouldn't necessarily say corruption, in our government, but at least something along those lines. Misguided intentions, perhaps. It will be interesting to see how the American public responds to this act if it comes to pass.
ReplyDeleteThe act did pass. Just saying.
DeleteAt first glance I completely agreed with you on this subject. Just from what I heard this piece of legislation seemed contrary to the notions and rights put forth by previous doctrines that we've, as Americans, held as fundamental standards; however on closer inspection of the legislation it becomes clear that the opposition have grossly exaggerated their case,if anything this bill is just redundant but far from harmful to the American's rights. First you say that under this bill there is no distinction between citizen and terrorist and that citizens are deprived of due process and this is simply untrue. In section 1031 b) the bill stipulates that the covered persons shall be 1) "A person who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11th 2001, or harbored those responsible for the attacks", and 2) "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, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces." So what we can see here is that there is a clean distinction between citizen and terrorist and that the book example holds not water. The language of this section also coincides with what the constitution says about treason. So anyone being punished under this bill would have deserved it and it does not violate the constitution nor the bill of rights. As for the argument that Americans can be detained indefinately, under section 1031 it also states: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens." So if American citizens cannot be detained indefinately and have due process prior to this bill they will have those same rights after. Looking at this we can see that this bill is redundant at best but does nothing to harm the American citizens granted they are not terrorists.
ReplyDelete