A controversial social network post, attending a peaceful protest, or publishing an anti-Congress critique on the internet could imprison one for life, without evidence or a trial. Could this really be? The New National Defense Authorization Act gives the government the right to unlimited wire tapping and warrant-less searches. It creates a permanent “police” state of martial law in the United States, and eradicates due process – the fundamental principle in which America’s constitution rests on. The bill authorizes world war against any nation where terrorism is suspected. Even worse, it authorizes torture, and allows American citizens, permanent residents, and foreigners to be detained in offshore prisons, such as Guantanamo Bay. This new bill in 2012 has been recently passed by the House and Senate, and is coming ever closer to becoming law. If the bill becomes law, it would essentially undermine the executive order signed by President Obama that bans the use of torture. Just as appalled as conservatives, libertarians, and liberals, President Obama has promised to veto the bill. However, regardless of an executive veto, it is possible for a Congressional override to take place. Also, according to Daphne Eviator of the Human Rights First’s Law and Security Program, “Whether he [Obama] will [veto the bill] is a difficult question because, politically, it’s difficult to veto a defense spending bill that’s 680 pages long and includes authorization to spend on a whole range of military programs.” Furthermore, vetoing would essentially put our military operations around the world on hold, and withholds their funding.
The ways of knowing and areas of knowledge include reason, emotion, and history. History and emotion in this case, are interrelated, which can be traced back to the September 11 Terrorist attacks as well as the War on Terror. Reason, however, is the most important way of knowing involved. While the senate, republicans, and too many democrats, including influential members such as Senator John McCain, are rooting for this legislation, outcries of opposition in response to the New National Defense Authorization Act is also prominent.
In the case of the defense bill, the opposition would raise key questions about basic legal concepts that have long buttressed guarantees of freedom in America, including the Habeas Corpus right to contest being jailed and the Posse Comitatus Act passed after the Civil War in 1878 to limit the military's role in law enforcement. The Obama Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision, for according to the White House, “….[it] would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets.”
“If the president thinks you are a terrorist, let him present charges and evidence to a judge,” Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle said in a statement Friday. “He has no authority to lock you up without any judicial review, just because he and Congress believe he should have unlimited power. That is the kind of power held by tyrants in totalitarian regimes. It has no place in the United States.”
"This is an asymmetric war. In asymmetric wars, you want to pit your greatest strength against the enemy's greatest weakness," Hutson said. "Our great strengths are our ideals and our system of justice."
"This constant push that everything has to be militarized – I don't think that creates a good country," Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, argued. "Because we have values. And due process of law is one of those values. And so I object, I object to holding American citizens without trial. I do not believe that makes us more safe."
Meanwhile, the supporters of the new bill stand their grounds. Making the country safer from possible attack is exactly the point, counters Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a former military lawyer. “What the measure does,” Graham said, “is basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield. It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next,” Graham said. “And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.’”
“Al Qaeda is at war with us,” said Senator Levin, “…This is not just a foreign war. They brought that war to our shores on 9/11. They are at war with us. The Supreme Court said, and I am going to read these words again, 'There is no bar to this nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant.'"
John McCain, in response to Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, states, “I think that as long as the individual, no matter who they are…if they pose a threat to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue that threat…and I think that’s the majority of the American public opinion, especially in light of the facts…27% of detainees who were released, got back into the fight, and were responsible for the death of Americans (FALSE ANALOGY). We need to take every step necessary to prevent that from happening, that’s for the safety and security of the men and women out there putting their lives on the line in our armed services”
Personally, I agree with the defense bill – "'Innocent until proven guilty' is essential to our legal system and American way of life,” says Mr. Bales. “The Senate Armed Services Committee's legislation violates fundamental values. It is unconstitutional and must be defeated. We cannot allow America to go further down the road of becoming a police state.” In this apparent struggle of balance between national security and individual freedom, I’d have to side with individual freedom. Frankly, immigrants from all over the world did not move to America to find themselves in a country just like theirs. Already, I feel a little nervous about going to college in America in less than eight months. As Hutson states, "I was dean in New Hampshire, where the motto is live free or die. The rest of that phrase, live free or die, is because there are things worse than death. This kind of dramatic change to who we are as a nation, who we are as people, is not something that you can just sort of rhetorically say, 'Well, it's going to save lives'...
"It's going to cost lives." he said, "It’s going to cost a way of life."
This issue of reasoning in national security verses individual freedom can be linked to other similar real-life cases in the past, such as in the measure of former President Franklin Roosevelt’s order in the incarceration of US citizens of Japanese descent during World War II.
Sources:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUHh1iqe43w&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qPtwDhBWYJA#!
No comments:
Post a Comment