Posted on 01/04/2012 4:29:55 PM PST by wagglebee
WASHINGTON, D.C., January 3, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Constitutional experts warn a new law that allows the president to permanently detain U.S. citizens without trial could be used against pro-life activists, who have already been defined as potential terrorists in documents by some government agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security.
“This law can apply to pro-lifers, yes,” said John W. Whitehead, a constitutional attorney and founder of The Rutherford Institute. Whitehead told LifeSiteNews.com the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA) “would allow the military to show up at your door if you’re a ‘potential terrorist,’ and put you in military detention where seeing a lawyer is difficult.”
The NDAA, which President Barack Obama signed on December 31, allows the president to hold enemy combatants in military detention facilities without trial until the end of hostilities, if the person “substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” The law allows the president to determine which groups may be considered terrorists without judicial or congressional oversight, although Secretary of Defense is required to “regularly brief” Congress about “covered persons.”
Sen. Carl Levin, D-MI, said the Obama administration specifically asked senators for the power to permanently detain American citizens without trial and to “remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section.”
Although Section 1022 states, “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States,” many contend the law allows detention as an option for Americans captured abroad. Glenn Greenwald of Salon summarized, “For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional.”
Dana Cody, president and executive director of Life Legal Defense Foundation, said pro-life activists “already are classified as domestic terrorists on some FBI lists.” She said that on one occasion the manager of a Kansas City, Kansas, abortion clinic slammed her client, Mary Ann Sause, to the ground and told the peaceful pro-life demonstrator he was photographing her license plate so he could report her to the FBI.
Cody, who told LifeSiteNews.com her organization is currently studying the NDAA, added that the law states “enemy territory is anywhere.” The Senate rejected an amendment from Dianne Feinstein limiting permanent detention to those captured “abroad.”
“If it’s within the discretion of the government under the National Defense Authorization Act, of course it will be used by the government to intimidate and silence pro-life people, especially those who are in the public forum,” Cody said.
In his signing statement, President Obama wrote, “I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation.” [sic.]
“The signing statement means nothing,” Whitehead said. “The signing statement is a political thing he hoped would settle the fears of the ACLU. If you give the president the power to come get you, he’s going to do it if he needs to, or if the corporations funding him say you are a potential terrorist.”
Whitehead said one of his clients, street preacher Michael Marcavage, has become the target of an FBI terrorist investigation. Whitehead wrote a letter to FBI director Robert Mueller asking why Marcavage is being investigated for preaching the Gospel. The FBI has not responded.
Under this administration, the Department of Homeland Security has listed pro-life organizations as potential domestic terrorists and held joint training sessions with the FBI to monitor pro-life websites.
An April 2009 DHS report entitled “Rightwing [sic.] Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” identified as likely terrorists “groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,” or who would be “antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues.” Such groups, the report concluded, “are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States.” The DHS later pulled the report.
However, last August DHS and FBI agents attended a terrorism training seminar hosted by Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Federation, and the Feminist Majority Foundation that equated free speech and distributing literature with violence. An 84-page resource guide listed three pages of potential extremist websites including Priests for Life, National Right to Life, the American Life League, Concerned Women for America, Human Life International, the American Center for Law and Justice, and the Christian Broadcasting Network.
In 1994-6, the Clinton administration’s Justice Department subpoenaed longtime pro-life activists in hopes of uncovering a terrorist conspiracy to kill abortionists. The Violence Against Abortion Providers Conspiracy (VAAPCON) program compiled a vast database of information on anti-abortion groups and individuals, including the National Right to Life Committee, the late John Cardinal O’Connor of New York, the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, Concerned Women for America, the Christian Coalition, Feminists for Life, and the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops, which condemned the secret database.
Whitehead warns the NDAA is “a threat to anybody causing trouble – that means exercising your rights.”
I see your point but that headline writes a check that the article simply does not cash. Lying is a sin, no matter the reason.
Well I can understand why you feel that way, but I just wish there was some consistency with those who protested so violently and are so up in arms over this. I wonder how many of them actually felt the same way when Bush was trying to detain suspects in a markedly similar manner. In fact, for all of the problems surrounding Obama on domestic and foreign policies, his interpretation of who can be detained and arrested under AUMF, which this bill was meant to reaffirm, has essentially been the same as that of Bush. And so this law is basically saying Congress agrees with Ex President Bush. That’s it. That’s the whole purpose of it.
And I do not claim that is not an important and serious issue, something I tried to reiterate in previous debates on this. Shifting the balance of power on something this controversial is a potential big problem. But what we need is a true understanding of current law, interpretation of current law, reevaluation of interpretations and pressure on govt to reevaluate it as well. Insisting that Obama designed this as a sort of grand scheme to expand his power to lock up pro life protesters does not help. Oh yes, and let’s not forget that the provisions were initially created by members of Congress and passed Congress with enough of a majority that a pocket veto was Obama’s only option. And that vetoing this bill, which has the military budget contained in it, would have left our military and other employees without pay for at least several months, making it even less of an option.
No different than bombing Catholic churches in Nigeria, IMO.
No wonder the kids in school cannot read-—apparently neither can the Senate.
I am ashamed there are two names from Wyoming on this list, vote against every single one!
I am not reading your posts as dismissing this, nor do I read this stupid, immoral law as an Obama power grab. Rather, I see this as a symptom of the big government inside the Beltway perspective that expanding government is always the answer regardless of the question. Except in cases of invasion or insurrection, as specified in the Constitution, our Congress should not attempt to work around habeus corpus. There simply is no time when an American citizen should be detained indefinitely without charge and without trial as permitted by the letter of this law. If a trial is awkward, that's unfortunate, but that is the only means that should permit our government to hold even a terrorist captured on the battlefield if that terrorist is a citizen. The rules for non-citizens can be different, but allowing indefinite detention of Americans crosses a line that should never be crossed.
I do understand that perfectly that point of view. But it does require American people as a whole to understand this history of law and the interpretation of the Constitution and what that document allows and demanding our Congress and SCOTUS reevaluate it as well. Because Presidents have claimed that there are exceptions for detaining Americans without trial, possibly indefinitely, since the Civil War.
Given the exact words in Constitution: The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it, indefinite detention without trial was at least plausibly constitutional during the Civil War. What we are facing today is neither an insurrection nor what the Founding Fathers meant by an "invasion". Too much dependence on evolving rulings and precedents can lead to an interpretation that is clearly contradictory to the actual words of the Constitution. I prefer to defer to the specific words, with any reference to history merely a guide to how those words have been understood. I have no problem at all with holding trials for treason and executing every evil slime who takes up arms to support the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but if they are citizens then their right to a trial is not subject to congressional infringement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.