"The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA. In addition, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war."
NDAA: Death To Due Process
Posted: Monday, January 16, 2012 1:18 am at InsideVandy
Imagine if you accidently cut off one of your fingers, or bought several guns and weatherproofed ammunition, or more than seven days of food. Imagine then, at three in the morning, a Navy SEAL team knocked down your door, dragged you out of your bed, accused you of being a terrorist, handcuffed you, denied you any legal counsel, and then sent you to spend the rest of your life being waterboarded in Guantanamo. Sound impossible? While you might think so, in fact there are now laws on the books that say a person missing fingers, or a person owning either guns, weatherproof ammunition or more than seven days of food can be considered a potential terrorist, according to Sen. Rand Paul.
Since 9/11, the federal government has been sacrificing civil liberties in the name stopping terrorists. The PATRIOT Act was just the first step. The National Defense Authorization Act, recently signed into law on Jan. 6 by President Obama, is yet another step toward the decline of civil liberties in America.
Under Section 1021 of the NDAA, the president can send the military to arrest "suspected" terrorists and decide whether or not that suspect gets a trial, and if so, what type of trial. Under Section 1022 of the NDAA, if the suspect "participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners," the suspect can then be sent to a military tribunal or just held indefinitely in a military facility, without charges.
The NDAA is a blatant violation of the Fifth Amendment, which states that "(n)o person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury ... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." An essential element of due process in American legal history and common law has been always been the right to trial by jury. Even the recent U.S. Supreme Court case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld in 2004 ruled that, "Fifth Amendment due process guarantees give a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant the right to contest that detention before a neutral decisionmaker." Yet the federal government now claims the authority to send even U.S. citizens to a military prison for an indefinite period of time with neither trial nor charges.
Theoretically, the U.S. Supreme Court will never overturn this law, even though it is blatantly unconstitutional, because a person detained with the provisions in the NDAA might never get a day in court. Thus, the only remaining solution to this grossly un-American legislation is its swift repeal. To do this, the public needs to be made aware of this heinous law. This begins with you: the reader of this article. I challenge you stand up for your rights, spread this news to all your friends, and discuss the alarming decline of civil liberties.
A response posted under this video, citing a letter by Representative Justin Amish (R-MI) that is at odds with Allen West's assertions:
"Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act and the inclusion of provisions in this legislation that would enable the indefinite detention of American citizens. I appreciate hearing from you on this important matter."
"Each year, Congress authorizes the budget of the Department of Defense through a National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This year's NDAA, as you may know, included deeply troubling provisions governing the handling of terrorism suspects by U.S. authorities. Specifically, provisions were added to the bill in the Senate that would put into law the authority for methods such as indefinite detention without charge and mandatory military detention. These provisions would authorize the use of these methods – on the basis of suspicion alone – to virtually anyone picked up in anti-terrorism efforts, including those arrested on U.S. soil, and U.S. citizens. In effect, this would give the President the authority to send the military literally anywhere in the world to imprison civilians without charge or trial. Imprisonment could be based merely on suspicion. No corner of the world, not even our own homes, would be off-limits and the government would have the ability to lock up American citizens without charge or trial."
"The inclusion of these provisions, which blatantly violate the constitutional rights of Americans, generated severe condemnation not only from civil liberties groups but from the very highest ranks of the U.S. national security leadership. The detainee provisions were opposed by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, CIA Director David Petraus, FBI Director Robert Mueller III, White House Counterterrorism Advisor John Brennan, Assistant Attorney General for National Security Lisa Monaco, and General Counsel for the Department of Defense Jeh Johnson. Given overwhelming public opposition to these measures and the strong, pragmatic condemnation of our national security experts, I was shocked and appalled at the insistence of some that these provisions remain intact."
"Facing the threat of President Obama's veto, these provisions in the NDAA were significantly altered. However, I have to agree with FBI Director Mueller, that these changes did not resolve national security concerns nor did they fundamentally change the provision that further enable indefinite military detention of terrorism suspects and threats to the inalienable due process rights afforded to every American citizen under the Constitution. The bill still gives the President the authority to indefinitely imprison American citizens without charge or trial, and as such, I strongly opposed the NDAA and voted against it."
"Unfortunately, this final version of the NDAA will become law. In order to carry on the fight against the reprehensible civil liberties violations in this legislation, I have joined with my colleague Congressman John Garamendi, to introduce the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011. This bill amends the Non-Detention Act of 1971 clarifying that a congressional authorization for the use of military force – such as that in the NDAA which included the detainee provisions – does not authorize the indefinite detention without charge or trial of U.S. citizens apprehended on U.S. soil. This is merely the first strong step forward in rolling back the human rights and civil liberties violations that were allowed to remain in the NDAA this year."
"The United States was founded on the promise that justice is an inalienable human right and that all American citizens, regardless of their suspected transgressions, are entitled to the due process of law. The America I believe in does not throw people in prison indefinitely without an opportunity to face the charges against them. Given your passionate advocacy, I hope you will stand beside me in the fight to reclaim our constitutional rights."
"Again, thank you for your correspondence. I am most appreciative. As your representative in Congress, I will continue to prioritize policies that create jobs, grow our economy and protect the middle class while responsibly reducing our deficit. Should you have additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. My door is always open."
BREAKING! NDAA - Rhode Island Rebelling? More States To Follow? Anti-NDAA Revolt?
