The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Gives Civil Rights In The US The Kiss Of Death

Following are excerpts from two articles commenting on the issuance of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Sections in red-font words are written by an 18 year old Alton Lu of The Huff Post High School. Those in blue-font words are written by analyst Joe Wolverton II of the New American. I "knitted" them together in black-font words. I think of the result as a coherent opinion of the unbelievably crazy, freedom blowing, NDAA!

--------

Back in the beginning stages of the War on Terrorism, President Bush enacted the Patriot Act. This allowed the government to spy on citizens, monitoring their activities in order to discern whether or not someone is a terrorist. One of the most controversial aspects of the law is authorization of indefinite detention of non-U.S. citizens. Immigrants suspected of being terrorists would be detained without trial until the War on Terrorism finished.

On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed a law known as the National Defense Authorization Act for the 2012 fiscal year, or the H.R. 1540. [...] this year, the NDAA bill has passed with new provisions that should have the entire country up with pitchforks.

Now, the indefinite detention has been extended to U.S. citizens as well. If people are spied on and suspected of being terrorists, they may be detained indefinitely without trial.

With the President's signing of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the writ of habeas corpus — a civil right so fundamental to Anglo-American common law history that it predates the Magna Carta — is voidable upon the command of the President of the United States. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is also revocable at his will.

So, the provisions of the Patriot Act allow the government to spy upon U.S. citizens and the NDAA allows the government to whisk a citizen away for no reason other than being suspected of terrorism.

The pro-NDAA Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has made arguments for this provision, stating that the law would apply for US citizens' turncoats who have aided Al-Qaeda or other associated organization. He gave a long-winded story of how a U.S. citizen might fly to Pakistan to receive terrorist training, then return home and shoot down fellow citizens a few miles from the airport.

He, without any slight sign of shame, declared, that the USA is now a theatre in the War on Terror and Americans can be detained indefinitely... and when you say to the interrogator, 'I want my lawyer,' the interrogator will say, 'You don't have a right to a lawyer because you're a military threat.'

The Fourth Amendment grants liberty from unreasonable seizures, while the Sixth guarantees every U.S. citizen a trial in front of a jury. No matter what supporters of the bill might have said about the provisions being misunderstood, the simple fact is that it is unconstitutional.

These implications grow larger as we know there is no single accepted definition of terrorism present in the United States. The State Department defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

Issues such as having an armed weapon or having a food supply lasting at least seven days can be grounds for terrorism.

Under this definition, the entire United States can be seen as terrorists. The government had planned the operations in Iraq and has resulted in over 100,000 civilian deaths. It can also be said that the U.S. is changing views of terrorism throughout the world... influencing an audience. Terrorism cannot be specifically defined as attacks against the United States; therefore, the United States might have been terrorizing parts of the Middle East.

With this bill, the President is “granting himself absolute power to indefinitely detain American citizens suspected (by him) of being” belligerents. He promises he won't use it, however.

Obama says his administration will not authorize the indefinite detention of citizens. But that could change. The interpretation of this bill can change on a dime. These politicians who say there is nothing to fear could quickly change whenever they see fit.

But, promises to restrain oneself from abusing power are unreliable. As Thomas Jefferson once warned: Free government is founded in jealousy, not confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind those we are obliged to trust with power.... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

© Alton Lu, The Huff Post High School

© Joe Wolverton II, The New American