NDAA Unlimited Arrest and Detention

[Guest Paniolo Cowboy SASS #75875]

Thanks, J-Bar...I had to look that one up...neat short-hand explanation of emotional bomb-throwing in a debate.

 

Back to some more FACTS:

 

We got diverted here talking about LEOs and whether THEY would follow such orders to arrest; that is NOT the issue under this bill, as I read it. This is a MILITARY authorization act, and refers only to the ARMED FORCES.

 

So, the problem under the Act is that a detained individual does NOT end up in front of a judge, in the worst-case scenario; he gets detained, for no set time, at the whim of the military; or, he gets shipped to another country, at the whim of the military; or, he gets sent to Guantanamo or a similar facility; or he gets tried by a military tribunal, with much more limited protection of his rights - all without due process.

 

Now, for some balance. You need to decide if you have some faith in the military. Can you trust them to be fair and responsible in the way in which they apply this process? Can you trust them, overall, to not use this power abusively, or against citizens who are not involved in terrorism, or not against any who are not a direct, active threat to our country? For one, I don't think there is a great risk of abuse; but my concern is that the POSSIBILITY for abuse exists; and power corrupts; and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And that's why we have a Constitution, which does not contain an exception for times of war or times of terror. (President Lincoln's suspension of the right of Habeus Corpus notwithstanding).

 

So, do I think that the Army will run amok, arresting poltical opponents of an Administration, and holding them without trial? No - not realistically. But that's an easy scenario. Take a harder one: an American Muslim writes anti-US literature, and circulates it on the Internet; it is downloaded by individuals in Middle Eastern countries, and a copy is found in a search of a suspected bomber in Yemen. Has the American supported terorism? Is he part of a conspiracy? Will he be arrested and held without trial until the military decides that he is not a threat? Or harder yet: an American with no religious affiliation and no overt political beliefs writes an editorial for a local newspaper, criticizing the government for starting another war in a Middle Eastern country; foreign press agencies, impressed with his analysis, reprint it across the world, and it is used as a rallying cry by citizens in the affected country; militia groups use quotes from the editorial as recruiting slogans for guerrilla fighters to oppose the invading US troops. Will the author be arrested? Will his Constitutional rights be over-ridden by the Act?

 

The guarantee of our rights under the Constitution, and the limitations on the power of our government and our military, is what seperates us from most of the other countries in the world. I'm not making dire predictions; I just do not agree with any Congress blindly or complicitly passing legislation infringing on those rights (no matter how scared they are of looking like they are "soft on terrorists". Passing a health care bill without a clear understanding of what it contains is one thing; passing a bill that arguably impacts our most basic freedoms, and fails to clearly define the circumstances under which US citizens can be indefinately detained by the military without a public civilian trial, is much worse.

LL

 

 

The attitude, "We must pass this bill in law, before we know what's in it" (per Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House at the time) should not be SOP. It is too dangerous.

[Hacker, SASS #55963]

If I were in that job I would want to read it before I vote for it.

But am I being too logical? or too ethical?

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

The attitude, "We must pass this bill in law, before we know what's in it" (per Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House at the time) should not be SOP. It is too dangerous.

 

Yup!

 

GG (who likes your new avatar Paniolo pard!) ~