In Obama We Trust?
On December 31st, 2011, while most Americans were celebrating the New Year, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This pernicious legislation significantly expands the power and scope of the federal government to fight the War on Terror, including the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects without trial. Under the new law the US military has the power to carry out domestic anti-terrorism operations on US soil.
Even worse, the NDAA authorizes the military to detain US citizens under the broad new anti-terrorism provisions provided in the bill; once again, without trial. Originally, President Obama threatened to veto the bill unless that specific provision was retooled, so that the civil liberties of US citizens were not in danger.
Basically, this law now opens the door for the military to conduct policing inside the United States, which would overstep the powers of the Executive Branch. The image of military patrolling the streets resides within totalitarian states…not a democratic republic.
In revising the provision, the Senate made indefinite military detention optional for US citizens. This is a complete violation of the writ of Habeas Corpus, through which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention, where there is a lack of sufficient cause or evidence.
Who is to say that the US military will have sufficient cause or evidence to indefinitely detain a US citizen without the right to a fair trial? The justice system here in the United States has always allowed even the worst criminals in history to have evidence presented to them, as well as granting the right to a fair and speedy trial.
We are allowing our elected officials to trade in our civil liberties for national security. This is something with which our Founding Fathers would not have agreed. We should remember that all men would be tyrants if they could, causing the powers that be to overstep their boundaries.
Nevertheless, President Obama signed the NDAA and inserted a signing statement claiming that he would never use his power to have the US military indefinitely detain US citizens. Although he may never use it, what would prevent future presidents from abusing this power?
This question goes all the way back to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. This was a critical argument between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists when it came time to support the Constitution of the United States. One of the main reasons that the Anti-Federalists would not support the Constitution - at that time - was its lack of legislation in place to protect the rights of the American people.
By seeing this in historical context, many were afraid of a national government having too much power and not having any legislation that would protect their rights. It should also be understood that the American people had just fought the American Revolution, and they did not want a threatening national government with too much power. The lack of a bill of rights was the focus of the Anti-Federalist campaign against ratification of the Constitution of the United States.
Many of the Federalists, who would be part of this new government, claimed that they would not do anything to infringe on civil liberties. The counter argument by the Anti-Federalists was that nothing stopped future politicians from infringing on the civil liberties of the American people.
When Congress met in 1788, the Bill of Rights was drafted, which is the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States- and protects Americans from the federal government abusing its power.
Over the last 60 years, the federal government has instilled fear in its citizens. During the Cold War, the fear and threat of communism was used as a tool to expand the federal government and have it violate civil liberties of Americans. By being labeled a communist, individual Americans would find themselves blacklisted from many industries and social circles within the United States.
Investigations, arrests and trials would likely follow. Today, it appears that anti-communism has been replaced with anti-terrorism, which has also been used as a tool to expand the federal government and infringe on the civil liberties of all Americans.
Each and every time we permit our fear to weaken our civil liberties we are actually conceding to the very terrorists we wish to defeat. This will continue to embolden them and make terrorism much harder to fight and overcome. This is something our Congress, President and Supreme Court, through their actions, demonstrates their lack of understanding.
Even worse, the NDAA authorizes the military to detain US citizens under the broad new anti-terrorism provisions provided in the bill; once again, without trial. Originally, President Obama threatened to veto the bill unless that specific provision was retooled, so that the civil liberties of US citizens were not in danger.
Basically, this law now opens the door for the military to conduct policing inside the United States, which would overstep the powers of the Executive Branch. The image of military patrolling the streets resides within totalitarian states…not a democratic republic.
In revising the provision, the Senate made indefinite military detention optional for US citizens. This is a complete violation of the writ of Habeas Corpus, through which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention, where there is a lack of sufficient cause or evidence.
Who is to say that the US military will have sufficient cause or evidence to indefinitely detain a US citizen without the right to a fair trial? The justice system here in the United States has always allowed even the worst criminals in history to have evidence presented to them, as well as granting the right to a fair and speedy trial.
We are allowing our elected officials to trade in our civil liberties for national security. This is something with which our Founding Fathers would not have agreed. We should remember that all men would be tyrants if they could, causing the powers that be to overstep their boundaries.
Nevertheless, President Obama signed the NDAA and inserted a signing statement claiming that he would never use his power to have the US military indefinitely detain US citizens. Although he may never use it, what would prevent future presidents from abusing this power?
This question goes all the way back to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. This was a critical argument between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists when it came time to support the Constitution of the United States. One of the main reasons that the Anti-Federalists would not support the Constitution - at that time - was its lack of legislation in place to protect the rights of the American people.
By seeing this in historical context, many were afraid of a national government having too much power and not having any legislation that would protect their rights. It should also be understood that the American people had just fought the American Revolution, and they did not want a threatening national government with too much power. The lack of a bill of rights was the focus of the Anti-Federalist campaign against ratification of the Constitution of the United States.
Many of the Federalists, who would be part of this new government, claimed that they would not do anything to infringe on civil liberties. The counter argument by the Anti-Federalists was that nothing stopped future politicians from infringing on the civil liberties of the American people.
When Congress met in 1788, the Bill of Rights was drafted, which is the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States- and protects Americans from the federal government abusing its power.
Over the last 60 years, the federal government has instilled fear in its citizens. During the Cold War, the fear and threat of communism was used as a tool to expand the federal government and have it violate civil liberties of Americans. By being labeled a communist, individual Americans would find themselves blacklisted from many industries and social circles within the United States.
Investigations, arrests and trials would likely follow. Today, it appears that anti-communism has been replaced with anti-terrorism, which has also been used as a tool to expand the federal government and infringe on the civil liberties of all Americans.
Each and every time we permit our fear to weaken our civil liberties we are actually conceding to the very terrorists we wish to defeat. This will continue to embolden them and make terrorism much harder to fight and overcome. This is something our Congress, President and Supreme Court, through their actions, demonstrates their lack of understanding.
Comments
Post a Comment