I may have a nervous breakdown. Why? The issue is the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which was approved by the Senate Thursday.
Initially, the bill would have made it a requirement for the military to hold suspected terrorists, even those captured on U.S soil. According a Politico analysis, however, it may still allow the government to deny U.S. citizens “suspected” of being “terrorists” the right to due process and subject them to indefinite military custody. That’s the scary part.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., tried to add a provision that protected citizens, but all the measure did was say that nothing will be changed under existing law. According to NPR, the 2004 Supreme Court case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld allows this. This defense bill needs to right that wrong.
The bill, touted by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, is receiving wide bipartisan support, something almost unheard of.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., according to Gawker, says the bill “basically says in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and that people can be held without charge or trial “American citizen or not.”
That would certainly make the Anwar al-Awlaki situation more likely to happen on American soil. Al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, was killed in a drone attack and did not receive his due process before being killed.
Granted, the government wouldn't send a drone to kill you, but the lack of due process is unmistakably similar.
This act violates the “innocent until proven guilty” moniker that has been so prevalent in our judicial system. This is an authorization allowing the military detention of U.S. citizens.
This isn't spending time in your local federal prison — this is being held in a military detention facility that may be offshore, perhaps something similar to Guantanamo Bay.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. is terrified by this, and rightly so. “It's not enough to just be an alleged terrorist. That's part of what due process is — deciding, are you a terrorist? I think it's important that we not allow U.S. citizens to be taken,” he said, according to the International Business Times.
This act has an eerie similarity to former President Franklin D. Roosevelt's authorization of the indefinite detention of Japanese Americans in internment camps during World War II.
Arresting a U.S. citizen and accusing them of terrorism is serious business, something that should not be taken lightly.
If that person is truly guilty of terrorism, I have no problem with their life imprisonment. But if they're citizens, they have a right to be charged and allowed access to legal defense, whether or not we think they're terrorists. Suspicion isn’t enough; the government must present evidence.
Being connected to terrorists isn't the same as being a terrorist, and any member of government unwilling to follow the law of our land should be voted out of office or made to resign.
I don't like to employ language of fear. I actually strive to keep my language as fear-free as possible, but I'm honestly really worried.
What if non-violent civil disobedience is threatening to the goons in D.C. and they decide to arrest and “detain” me? Where is my recourse in a government that has the ability to scuttle people away from the prying eyes of the media?
If I am not granted due process in any form, my innocence becomes irrelevant, and that's unacceptable.
It is my hope that Obama follows through with his veto threat, should this bill reach his desk. If the bill passes it would signal that an Orwellian-style nightmare is ready to be unleashed upon a largely unsuspecting populace.
It is also my hope that you, my fellow students, would pick up your phone and call your members of congress to fight for our constitutionally protected right to due process. We cannot let this pass.
Reach the columnist at page.gerrick@asu.edu
Sources:
http://www.npr.org/2011/12/01/143029639/senate-approves-662b-defense-bill
