A dangerous bill heading toward the president would gut our rights.

montereycountyweekly.com ^ | 29 December, 2011 | Patricia J. Williams

[marktwain]

You know these are interesting times when Glenn Beck, Dianne Feinstein, Rand Paul and the ACLU all agree on an issue. The issue in question is Subtitle D of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), headed to the president’s desk. These under-the-radar provisions, co-sponsored by Senators John McCain and Carl Levin, would allow for the indefinite military detention of any person alleged to be a member of Al Qaeda, the Taliban or “associated forces.” The provisions also apply to any person who supports or aids “belligerent” acts against the United States, whether the person is apprehended here or abroad. 


For noncitizens, such detention would be mandatory. And while news agencies from Reuters to the Huffington Post have recently reported American citizens would be “exempt” from this requirement, the truth is more complicated. Military detention would be the default. At the discretion of the president, it could be waived in favor of giving the case to domestic law enforcement. Under this law, if the Defense Department thinks you’re a terrorist, there would be no presumption of innocence. Without such a waiver, again, even if you’re a citizen, you will never hear words like “alleged” or “suspected.” You will be an “unprivileged enemy belligerent,” with limited rights to appeal that status, no rights to due process, or to a jury, or to a speedy trial guided by the rules of evidence.


According to the “law of war” invoked by these sections of the NDAA, a person in military custody can be held indefinitely, without charge and without access to civilian courts. Perhaps most significant, with the suspension of constitutional provisions for due process, there would be no Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. During the Congressional debate over the NDAA, proponents like Senators Saxby Chambliss and Lindsey Graham argued that when we capture someone deemed an enemy, we must start with the presumption that “the goal is to gather intelligence” and “prosecution is a secondary concern.” In infantile terms, they declared “the nastiest killers in the world” should be questioned for “as long as it takes,” without them “lawyering up.” This need to make “them” talk was cited repeatedly, as though Abu Ghraib had never happened.


Against the backdrop of President Obama’s recent exercise of that broadest of all possible executive actions – the targeted assassination of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki – the controversy over military detention (and Obama’s threat to veto the NDAA) might seem less dramatic. As with much post-9/11 rhetoric, the Congressional debaters spoke of “terror” as though it were a clearly defined and embodied evil. But it is not at all clear what distinguishes mere dissent or sympathy or belief or commitment or satire from the kinds of expressions of hostile ideologies that this legislation would deem dangerous. If passed, the NDAA will inevitably be followed by a raft of First Amendment litigation. 


And talk about iconic constitutional constructions: Glenn Beck’s online magazine, The Blaze, published a straightforwardly libertarian critique of the bill; the comments from his readers sizzle with Second Amendment belligerence from “patriots” who declare they are running out to buy more ammo and defecting to the hills. 


“Citizen or not,” insists Senator Graham, it’s only “using good old-fashioned common sense” that persons covered by the act shouldn’t be given more rights than if they were in Afghanistan. 


And with that conceptual wand, I guess we have lowered the constitutional bar to whatever it is in Afghanistan. 


Patricia J. Williams, professor of law at Columbia University, writes The Nation column “Diary of a Mad Law Professor.”

[marktwain]

Weird how she focuses on the mild hazing of Abu Ghraib instead of domestic atrocities like Waco and Ruby Ridge. But then, the left has never been big on logic and consistency. She has to put the word patriots in quotes when it applies to people on the right, even when they agree with her in opposition to this bill.

[massgopguy]

So, Code Pink could be hauled in for aiding the insurgents?

[NeoCaveman]

Or gun owners, or libertarians, or conservatives, or Ron Paul supporters, etc. etc.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13290698/The-Modern-Militia-MovementMissouri-MIAC-Strategic-Report-20Feb09-

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

BUMP

[oldbrowser]

So, Code Pink could be hauled in for aiding the insurgents?

Any of us that disagree with the government could be hauled in. Belligerent can be interpreted many ways.

[Ernie Kaputnik]

The conspiracy theory about FEMA Concentration Camps doesn’t sound as crazy I used to think it was.

“IF” the gubmint intends to hold people in detention indefinitely, they are going to need someplace to hold them.

Food for thought.

[yank in the UK]

I’m sure that all factions of the progressive liberati (including code pink) will be exempt from this BS

[Louis Foxwell]

I know a bunch of beligerents and they are armed to the teeth.

[Charles Martel]

I’m sure that all factions of the progressive liberati (including code pink) will be exempt from this BS.

Exempt? Well of course, they'll be running it.

[TheBigIf]

More BS anti-National Security rhetoric from the same crowd. How is it shocking at all that Ron Paul and the ACLU agree? They have both continually stood for terrorist rights on issue after issue.

We have already been told by these same people that the Patriot Act was going to result in Americans being denied trials and locked up. These same groups stand against every single bit of legislation that is anti-terrorist. Ron Paul, Code Pink, the ACLU and a host of others groups predictably come out and make the same claims over and over and over again in defense of terrorists.

I am so sick of this terrorists civil rights movement here in the United States being run by the likes of Code Pink, Ron Paul and the ACLU. They have never met a dictator or terrorist that they didn’t like.

There is no suprise at all for libertarians to be agreeing with the radical leftist of Code Pink or the ACLU. The libertarian party was formed to join the radical left in the anti-war movement of the counter culture sixties.

[Yo-Yo]

I would like to believe that any law that circumvents due process for US citizens would be ruled unconstitutional by the court system.

However, precedent has been set with the internment of US citizens of Japanese descent during WWII.

If Zero and/or a successor DemocRAT manages to alter the balance of the Supreme Court, I'm afraid that the indefinite military detention of US citizens would be found constitutional.

[TheBigIf]

Senator Marco Rubio Defends NDAA

http://government.brevardtimes.com/2011/12/senator-marco-rubio-defends-ndaa.html

[faucetman]

“co-sponsored by Senators John McCain and Carl Levin,”

All you need to know.

[TheBigIf]

Opposed by Ron Paul, Code Pink and the ACLU.

All you need to know.

[llandres]

Thanks for the link. I really like Rubio; I was most concerned about the “belligerent” part of this, but it sounds as if Rubio has analyzed the bill.

[bunkerhill7]

Webster defines `belligerent` as
``waging war; specifically : belonging to or RECOGNIZED AS A STATE OF WAR and
protected by and subject to the laws of war.``

Ergo, Congress would have to declare war upon each separate citizen before the government can do anything.

Only Congress can declare war.

[bunkerhill7]

In Mindanao in southern Philippines in late 1941, the local authorites rounded up all the Japanese there [~1,000] and put them in a camp coz they were afraid of 5th column activities ahead of the Japanese troop landings.
A justifiable precedent happening BEFORE the USA Japanese-American internments.

[Pride in the USA]

ping

[Right Wing Assault]

I allege Dick Obama to be a member of Al Qaeda. Arrest and detain him indefinitely, please.

[LucyT]

A dangerous bill heading toward the p_resident would gut our rights.

According to the “law of war” invoked by these sections of the NDAA, a person in military custody can be held indefinitely, without charge and without access to civilian courts. - Perhaps most significant, with the suspension of constitutional provisions for due process, there would be no Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. During the Congressional debate over the NDAA, proponents like Senators Saxby Chambliss and Lindsey Graham argued that when we capture someone deemed an enemy, we must start with the presumption that “the goal is to gather intelligence” and “prosecution is a secondary concern.”

In infantile terms, they declared “the nastiest killers in the world” should be questioned for “as long as it takes,” without them “lawyering up.” This need to make “them” talk was cited repeatedly, as though Abu Ghraib had never happened.


Article, also # 5 , # 11 .