Congress about to undermine our basic constitutional rights
It is a question that in a rational world should not have to be asked, because the answer is so damn obvious:
Should the U.S. military be given the power to arrest U.S. citizens, here on U.S. soil, and to detain those citizens indefinitely in military prisons, without access to legal counsel or due process, and without trial in civilian court?
The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights say hell no. Holding U.S. citizens in military prisons without right to trial or counsel? Really?
Centuries of American liberty also say hell no. The CIA, FBI and the entire U.S. intelligence system say no, as does the military. They do not want the power to arrest and detain U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, and any legitimate reading of our nation’s traditions, beliefs and founding documents says they should never have it. It is antithetical to a free people.
Yet a majority of the U.S. House and Senate says otherwise. Despite a stern veto threat by President Obama, Congress is about to pass such language into federal law as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. I hope and pray that Obama has the guts to carry out his veto threat, and I hope freedom-loving Americans of all ideologies rally to support him in that cause.
The theory behind the proposed law is that the United States is part of the battlefield against the war on terror, and that the military must be given free rein to fight that war, even here in the United States itself. Sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA say that the military can arrest and detain anybody “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.”
Look, if U.S. citizens are suspected of aiding and abetting terrorists, they should of course be arrested and tried. If convicted, they should be put away for a long long time. But there is no reason to suppose that civilian courts are not capable of handling such cases competently and fairly. And without access to our civilian system of justice, what agency or body is supposed to determine whether a citizen has “directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces?”
Would Oregon attorney Brandon Mayfield, for example, have been tossed into a military brig without a lawyer under such a law? If so, he might still be there, despite the fact that the FBI was later forced to acknowledge that he was absolutely innocent. What about the people falsely accused of terrorism as documented here and here? What about the million or more people whose names have somehow ended up on the government’s “terrorist watch list?”
Some advocates of the proposed change in federal law claim that it would not apply to U.S. citizens. They are either wrong or deliberately misleading. Any lawyers out there can confirm that claim by reading the provisions in question. They contain no language protecting U.S. citizens on U.S. soil from being swept into military custody.
U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, an advocate of the provisions, certainly understands that they apply to U.S. citizens. As he said on the floor of the Senate:
“But we need to let this president know, and every other president, that if you capture someone in the homeland, on our soil — American citizen or not — who is a member of al-Qaida, you do not have to give them a lawyer or read them the rights automatically. You can treat them as a military threat under military custody, just like if you captured them overseas…. Under domestic criminal law, you cannot hold someone indefinitely without giving them a lawyer or reading them their rights, nor should you. But under military law, if you have evidence that the person is a military threat, you don’t have to give them a lawyer.”
This is not some temporary provision. As Graham said, he expects the war on terror to continue long after he is dead. Nor is there any compelling need for such legislation. It tears a huge hole in the U.S. Constitution, and for what reason?
Earlier this week, a group of senators attempted to strip the provisions in question from the defense bill. By a vote of 38-60, they failed. Two Republicans — Mark Kirk of Illinois and Rand Paul of Kentucky — voted to kill the change, while 15 Democrats voted in favor of it. Since the bill has already passed the House of Representatives, it seems almost certain to end up on the president’s desk.
Again, I hope that he has the courage to veto it. And in an era when some Americans claim to see a dire threat to their liberty in some health-care reform law, I hope the American people are still wise enough to recognize a very real threat to their freedom when one arises.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2012 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
411 comments Add your comment
Fly-On-The-Wall
December 1st, 2011
1:59 pm
Agreed, this is a dark day that it has even been brought up in Congress yet alone made into legislation. I hope Obama keeps his word.
Fly-On-The-Wall
December 1st, 2011
1:59 pm
Wow, first? Hot dang!
barking frog
December 1st, 2011
2:00 pm
I am afraid most will support this bill. The threat purveyors
in the press, politics and law enforcement have done a good
job of frightening people.
Kamchak
December 1st, 2011
2:01 pm
Holy crap!
Veto this, Mr. Obama.
Granny Godzilla
December 1st, 2011
2:01 pm
The President has already stated he would veto the bill over this.
And rightfully so.
Mick
December 1st, 2011
2:02 pm
Vito corleone it…
Granny Godzilla
December 1st, 2011
2:03 pm
Next thing you know they’ll be charging kids in Texas with misdemeanors
for tardiness and skipping class…..
Oh wait!!
They are!
What are you talking about?
December 1st, 2011
2:05 pm
“Congress about to undermine our most basic constitutional rights”
Where were you when Obama signed into law the health care bill that mandates everyone buy health care?
Geez, you left wingers are so damn predictable.
Kamchak
December 1st, 2011
2:06 pm
Next thing you know they’ll be charging kids in Texas with misdemeanors
for tardiness and skipping class…..
Or the governor of Kansas will pay someone to specifically scour the interwebs looking for teenaged girls saying mean things about him and have them sent to the principal’s office
Granny Godzilla
December 1st, 2011
2:07 pm
“Where were you when Obama signed into law the health care bill that mandates everyone buy health care?”
Most of us were thanking Newt and Mitt and the Heritage Foundation for coming up with the idea!
Even a broken clock is right twice a day
Jay
December 1st, 2011
2:07 pm
No wonder “Talking” doesn’t know what I’m talking about.
He or she doesn’t even bother to read the piece ….
Loretta Paraguassu
December 1st, 2011
2:08 pm
We are seeing a government that is losing it’s sense of purpose. PLEASE VETO this bill, Pres. Obama. Your sanity is our only defense against people who don’t seem to care about defending our basic rights and tenets of democracy.
Welcome to the Occupation
December 1st, 2011
2:09 pm
This is not some temporary provision. As Graham said, he expects the war on terror to continue long after he is dead.
Permanent “state of emergency”.
Loretta Paraguassu
December 1st, 2011
2:09 pm
Thank you, Jay Bookman.
southpaw
December 1st, 2011
2:09 pm
Do potential terrorists buy and sell things? Then use the Commerce Clause to give the government the authority it wants. It works pretty well for the Affordable Care Act. Right?
(snark)
What are you talking about?
December 1st, 2011
2:10 pm
“And in an era when some Americans claim to see a dire threat to their liberty in some health-care reform law”
I didn’t read your piece, Bookman? Really? You are about as predictable as Barney Frank is with male prostitution.
Joe Hussein Mama
December 1st, 2011
2:10 pm
I feel certain that the President’s veto of this odious legislation will be spun by our conservative colleagues and associates into an American obligation to provide hot fudge sundaes to terrorists, as well as a requirement to provide First Class airline seats back home to any terrorist who’s cooling his heels in any American-run jail or detention facility.
arnold
December 1st, 2011
2:11 pm
I’m not too sure Obama has the cojones to veto. His record is not one of which he can be too proud.
Jm
December 1st, 2011
2:12 pm
Where’s the part in the bill that says they can do that on US soil?
Or is it simply and obviously assumed that they can’t because that would violate the constitution.
Jay is declaring fire. So far I only see smoke.
Granny Godzilla
December 1st, 2011
2:16 pm
Joe H
Tell’em it’s hotfudgeboarding and just enhanced interogation.
Fat terrorists are easy to catch.
Jm
December 1st, 2011
2:17 pm
I only trust the mongrels in congress so far
I say no. But if a nuke blows up in manhattan because we provided an attorney to terrorist, there are going to be some mighty upset people
Jm
December 1st, 2011
2:19 pm
Sooo, jay now agrees obamacare violates the constitution?
Interesting
Welcome to the Occupation
December 1st, 2011
2:19 pm
Anybody doubting what I’ve been talking about recently in saying that the two-party system in this country is a complete sham, just consider this issue here.
Glenn Greenwald has it right,. What’s so ominous about this little stunt is how BIPARTISAN it is. As with every other issue — public option during health care, e.g. — the Democrats carefully orchestrate their votes so that there’s a continual rotating cast of “villains” who can be the fall guy and vote against a progressive measure and yet still on other issues vote in favor of the progressive measure, which is purposely doomed to fail each time.
Greenwald:
The Senate just voted 37-61 against an amendment, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Mark Udall, that would have stripped the Levin/McCain section from the bill: in other words, Levin/McCain garnered one more vote than the 60 needed to stave off a filibuster. Every GOP Senator (except Rand Paul and Mark Kirk) voted against the Udall amendment, while just enough Democrats – 16 in total — joined the GOP to ensure passage of Levin/McCain. That includes such progressive stalwarts as Debbie Stabenow, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeanne Shaheen and its lead sponsor, Carl Levin.
This is why I think you’re missing the point, Jay, about a threatened Obama veto:
Most media discussions of Levin/McCain assert that President Obama has threatened to veto it. That is not quite true: the White House’s statement on this bill uses language short of a full-on veto threat: “the President’s senior advisers [will] recommend a veto.” Moreover, former Bush DOJ official Jack Goldsmith makes a persuasive (though not dispositive) case that it is unlikely that the President would veto this bill. Most likely, it seems to me, is that the veto threat will be used to extract concessions in order to have a bill that the President will sign.
Let’s be very clear, though, about what the “veto threat” is and is not. All things considered, I’m glad the White House is opposing this bill rather than supporting it. But, with a few exceptions, the objections raised by the White House are not grounded in substantive problems with these powers, but rather in the argument that such matters are for the Executive Branch, not the Congress, to decide.
http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/
JamVet
December 1st, 2011
2:20 pm
The disgustingly misnamed Patriot Act.
The DHS.
Suspending habeus corpus.
Pro-torture.
Now this?
Even that word Homeland sounds rather fascistic, doesn’t it?
ty webb
December 1st, 2011
2:20 pm
spot on Jay…who knew you were such a fan of Liberty?..but then again, maybe this is just one of those examples of a blind nut finding a squirrel every now and then.
Kamchak
December 1st, 2011
2:22 pm
Sooo, jay now agrees obamacare violates the constitution?
No.
This has been another episode of one-word answers to a simple(ton’s) question.
Jay
December 1st, 2011
2:23 pm
Sorry folks, the links to the congressional record and to the bill text have timed out. I’ve got to finish up another duty and then I’ll try to post those items through another means.
What are you talking about?
December 1st, 2011
2:24 pm
“The disgustingly misnamed Patriot Act.”
Which Obama extended btw.
Gale
December 1st, 2011
2:26 pm
WUT!!!? We have far too many nut jobs in Congress.
Jm
December 1st, 2011
2:27 pm
Kam sport the non voter
Well Jay’s statements above sure indicate otherwise
Joe The Plumber too.
December 1st, 2011
2:27 pm
This is one thatI think all thinking Americans should agree on, be them democrat or republican. People should be calling the offices of these clowns now and tell them (using jays verbage) HELL NO!!!!!!!
Get Real
December 1st, 2011
2:28 pm
Enemy combatants are enemy combatants
Normal
December 1st, 2011
2:28 pm
My father told me back in the late ’50’s that one day the Soviet Union and America would reach that point to where we would say we are the same. He meant it as a good thing, like the USSR would realize it’s ideological error. I say that if this passes we have indeed reached the same level as the USSR and I mean that in a bad way. We will have given up our freedom and our nation will have taken that first step to at least fascism. Now you can be afraid of knocks on your door at night. Damn, just damn.
Adam
December 1st, 2011
2:29 pm
Jay, I want to thank you for posting about this, as this is the first attempt I have seen in the days since this began for a liberal blog or pundit to take up the issue AT ALL, save for a single mention in the Maddow Blog.
Jm
December 1st, 2011
2:30 pm
If Obama signs it, will you libs vote for him again?
(this question is obviously not addressed to you kam “there’s your sign” chak)
Jay
December 1st, 2011
2:30 pm
jm, there is nothing too low for you to attempt, is there.
(note that I left the question mark off, because it really wasn’t intended as a question).
Kamchak
December 1st, 2011
2:30 pm
Enemy combatants are enemy combatants
Repetition is repetition.
And tautology is saying the same thing, but just using different words.
(ir)Rational
December 1st, 2011
2:30 pm
It is section 1031, not 1301 anyway. Unless you want to read how they’re wasting your money, that is.
barking frog
December 1st, 2011
2:30 pm
enlistment oaths of the U.S. say ‘ protect and defend the
Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic’
JamVet
December 1st, 2011
2:32 pm
What are you…
And the neo-cons never even thanked BHO, did they?
Nor for his Afghan surge.
Nor for his letting the banksters/Titans of Malfeasance and Criminal Negligence get off scott free.
Nor for all of the other things they wanted him to do and he did.
Ingrates…
Matti's Boycott
December 1st, 2011
2:32 pm
The War on the American People is in full swing now, and it’s not just waged by foreign enemies, it’s being waged by the elite group (aka the “one percent”) who have taken over our government/economy.
Plutocracy does not happen by accident, you know. It requires careful strategy, massive funding, and a multi-phased implementation of the conditions necessary for it to take hold and thrive.
TRUST.NO.ONE.
Adam
December 1st, 2011
2:33 pm
Jm: If Obama signs it, will you libs vote for him again?
Honestly, I might not. But mostly because he said he would veto it if it reached his desk with those provisions. And I consider that particular promise a very serious one to break if he breaks it.
Jay
December 1st, 2011
2:34 pm
Thanks, (ir)rational. You are correct and I’ve fixed it.
Peadawg
December 1st, 2011
2:35 pm
” if you capture someone in the homeland, on our soil — American citizen or not — who is a member of al-Qaida, you do not have to give them a lawyer or read them the rights automatically.” – I agree w/ this. If you’re a member of al-Qaida, you don’t deserve sh*t. Sorry…I’m not here to defend al-Qaida members and give them a nice cozy jail cell.
TruthBe
December 1st, 2011
2:36 pm
There is a law on the books that prohibits our Military to be used aganist it’s own Citizens. Give Up? Remember Waco and Rudy Ridge AG Eric Holder? Answer,Posse-Comitatus.
What are you talking about?
December 1st, 2011
2:39 pm
“Nor for his letting the banksters/Titans of Malfeasance and Criminal Negligence get off scott free.”
Don’t you have a trailer park to occupy?
What are you talking about?
December 1st, 2011
2:40 pm
“If Obama signs it, will you libs vote for him again?
They’ll have to, he pays them all in food stamps.
(ir)Rational
December 1st, 2011
2:40 pm
Pea – So you’re willing to trust the government to make that determination correctly? I don’t trust the regular police to figure out who was in the wrong at a wreck when it is obvious, and that trust doesn’t grow when it is expanded to a federal level. I sleep a lot better at night knowing that there is a Constitution (supposedly) protecting my rights from being trampled by the government.
barking frog
December 1st, 2011
2:41 pm
§ 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
Posse Comitatus
‘Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.’
Aquagirl
December 1st, 2011
2:44 pm
If you’re a member of al-Qaida, you don’t deserve sh*t.
Of course they all have ” I AM A MEMBER OF AL-QAEDA” tattooed below the towel line on their forehead, pea, so we’re sure who to jail indefinitely.
You must live in an interesting world.