Though the 9/11 attacks occurred more than a decade ago, Congress continues to exploit them to pass evermore draconian laws on "terrorism," with the Senate now empowering the military to arrest people on U.S. soil and hold them without trial, a serious threat to American liberties, says ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.
Ray McGovern, Retired CIA Analyst
Ambiguous but alarming new wording, which is tucked into the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and was just passed by the Senate, is reminiscent of the "extraordinary measures" introduced by the Nazis after they took power in 1933.
And the relative lack of reaction so far calls to mind the oddly calm indifference with which most Germans watched the erosion of the rights that had been guaranteed by their own Constitution. As one German writer observed, "With sheepish submissiveness we watched it unfold, as if from a box at the theater."
The writer was Sebastian Haffner (real name Raimond Pretzel), a young German lawyer worried at what he saw in 1933 in Berlin, but helpless to stop it since, as he put it,
"The German people collectively and limply collapsed, yielded and capitulated."
Wrote Haffner at the time.
"The result of this millionfold nervous breakdown is the unified nation, ready for anything, that is today the nightmare of the rest of the world."
Not a happy analogy.
The Senate bill, in effect, revokes an 1878 law known as the Posse Comitatus Act, which banned the Army from domestic law enforcement after the military had been used —and often abused — in that role during Reconstruction. Ever since then, that law has been taken very seriously — until now. Military officers have had their careers brought to an abrupt halt by involving federal military assets in purely civilian criminal matters.
But that was before 9/11 and the mantra, "9/11 changed everything." In this case of the Senate-passed NDAA -- more than a decade after the terror attacks and even as U.S. intelligence agencies say al-Qaeda is on the brink of defeat -- Congress continues to carve away constitutional and legal protections in the name of fighting "terrorism."
Detainees at Guantanamo Bay in 2002
The Senate approved the expanded military authority despite opposition from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and FBI Director Robert Mueller -- and a veto threat from President Barack Obama.
The Senate voted to authorize -- and generally to require -- "the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons" indefinitely. And such "covered persons" are defined not just as someone implicated in the 9/11 attacks but anyone who "substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."
Though the wording is itself torturous -- and there is a provision for a waiver from the Defense Secretary regarding mandatory military detentions -- the elasticity of words like "associated forces" and "supported" have left some civil libertarians worried that the U.S. military could be deployed domestically against people opposing future American wars against alleged "terrorists" or "terrorist states."
The Senate clearly wished for the military's "law and order" powers to extend beyond the territory of military bases on the theory that there may be "terrorsymps" (short for "terrorist sympathizers") lurking everywhere.
Is the all-consuming ten-year-old struggle against terrorism rushing headlong to consume what's left of our constitutional rights? Do I need to worry that the Army in which I was proud to serve during the 1960s may now kick down my front door and lead me off to indefinite detention — or worse?
Worse still, a few of my neighbors overheard me telling my grandchildren that President Obama should be ashamed to be bragging about having Awlaki, an American citizen, and later his 16 year-old son murdered without a whiff of due process.
"If you hear something, say something!"
COMMENTARY: The $662 billion National Defense Authorization Act H.R. 1540 provides funding for 2012 at $27 billion less than Obama's request and $43 billion less than Congress authorized in 2011.
The bill also contains several detainee provisions that civil liberties groups and human rights advocates have strongly opposed, arguing that they would allow the military greater authority to detain and interrogate U.S. citizens and non-citizens and deny them legal rights protected by the Constitution.
Here's the final voting tallies in the House of Representatives and Senate:
- U.S. House of Representatives - 322 FOR, 96 AGANST, and 13 OBSTAINING. The state that came down best for civil liberties was Massachusetts with Niki Tsongas(D) being the only FOR. Here's a small sprinkling of Congressional leaders who voted for NDAA: Nancy Pelosi(D), John Boehner(R), Eric Cantor(weasal), Darrell Issa(R), John Carney(D), Debbie Wasserman Shultz(D), Paul Braun(R), Joe Walsh(R), Mike Pence(R), Andre' Carson(D), Michele Bachmann(R), Tom Cole(R), Tim Scott(R), Virginia Foxx(R), Heath Shuler(D).
- U.S. Senate - 93 FOR, 7 AGAINST. Here's a small sprinkling of Senatorial leaders who voted for NDAA: Jeff Sessions (R), Lisa Murkowski(R), Barbara Boxer(D), Dian Fienstein(D), Mark Udall (D), Joe Liberman (DINO), Marco Rubio(R), Richard Lugar (R), Mitch McConnell (R), Olympia Snowe (R), Scott Brown (R), John Kerry (D), Claire McCaskil (D), Harry Reid(D), Lindsey Graham(R), Jim Webb(D), Mark Warner(D), John McCain(R), Carl Levin(D).
It's an election year, and all these punkasses are covering their puckered asses. These punkasses are afraid of their own shadows. If you vote for anything that may be viewed as protecting the rights of a terrorist, or a U.S. citizen suspected of being a terrorist, even if there is no evidence, you could be in trouble with the voters. The "terrorist fear factor" has polluted their thinking process, where they are willing to throw away the U.S. Constitution.
According to the Washington Post, Obama initially had threatened to veto the legislation. In a signing statement released by the White House on Saturday, Obama said he still does not agree with everything contained in the legislation. But with military funding due to expire Monday, Obama said he signed the bill after Congress made last-minute revisions at the request of the White House before approving it two weeks ago.
Here's what the media and many influential individuals within and outside the government are saying about the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA):
Forbes says.
"The NDAA would place domestic terror investigations and interrogations into the hands of the military and which would open the door for trial-free, indefinite detention of anyone, including American citizens, so long as the government calls them terrorists. So much for innocent until proven guilty. So much for limited government. What Americans are now facing is quite literally the end of the line. We will either uphold the freedoms baked into our Constitutional Republic, or we will scrap the entire project in the name of security as we wage, endlessly, this futile, costly, and ultimately self-defeating War on Terror."
The Huffington Post says.
"The provisions of the Patriot Act allow the government to spy upon U.S. citizens and the NDAA allows the government to whisk a citizen away for no reason other than being suspected of terrorism. So why has this law been passed when it is very easily seen as unconstitutional? The Fourth Amendment grants liberty from unreasonable seizures, while the Sixth guarantees every U.S. citizen a trial in front of a jury. No matter what supporters of the bill might have said about the provisions being misunderstood, the simple fact is that it is unconstitutional."
Supporter of the NDAA, Representative Tim Griffin stated in the Daily Caller:
"Section 1022's use of the word 'requirement' also has been misinterpreted as allowing U.S. citizens to be detained, but this provision does not in any way create this authority. This provision must be read in the context of Section 1022's purpose, which is reflected in its title and relates solely to 'military custody of foreign al Qaida terrorists.' The term "requirement" does not mean that detention of U.S. citizens is optional under this provision."
NDAA has raised such a hornets nest of controversy, prompting President Barack Obama to release the following statement regarding the H.R. 1540 (NDAA):
"I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Moreover, 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. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law."
The Huffington Post countered the President with this reponse.
"President Obama says that his administration will not authorize the indefinite detention of American citizens. Yet Obama also said that he would close Guantanamo Bay. Obama also said he would recall the troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. Obama also said he would end the Bush tax cuts."
"It doesn't matter the reason these promises were not kept. What matters is that they weren't. Obama says his administration will not authorize the indefinite detention of citizens. But that could change. The interpretation of this bill can change on a dime. These politicians who say there is nothing to fear could quickly change whenever they see fit."
Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, said after Congress approved the bill said.
“By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in U.S. law.”
The American Civil Liberties Union, a staunch supporter of the U.S. Constitution and civil rights, lamblasted the NDAA by saying.
"No corner of the world, not even your own home, would be off-limits to the military. And there is no exception for American citizens. Section 1031 — one of the indefinite detention provisions — of the Senate-approved version of the NDAA has no limitations whatsoever based on geography, duration or citizenship. And the entire Senate bill was drafted in secret, with no hearing, and with committee votes behind closed doors."
"I'm not sure which was more surprising — that the majority of senators ignored the pleas of countless constituents, or that they also ignored every top national security official opposed to the provisions. Opposition to the detention provisions came from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, CIA Director David Petraeus, FBI Director Robert Mueller, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, White House Advisor for Counterterrorism John Brennan, and DOJ National Security Division head Lisa Monaco. The Senate ignored them all."
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of the Senate's most conservative members said.
"I'm very, very, concerned about having U.S. citizens sent to Guantanamo Bay for indefinite detention."
Paul said, echoing the views of the American Civil Liberties Union.
"It's not enough just to be alleged to be a 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."
The problem with NDAA is that as Commander-in-Chief, the President has the latitude to interpret the NDAA act in a way that serves the purposes of the President. He can simply say, that you are being detained indefinitely because you are a "person of interest," and are simply suspected of being a terrorist. There may be no proof you are a terrorist, or giving aid and comfort to a terrorist, but you could be detained "just in case," for an indefinite period, without rights to an attorney, an appeal or trial. Furthermore, all future presidents, whether Democrat or Republican, would have the same latitude.
I know some of you will probably feel just the opposite, you'll read me the riot act, remind me of 911 (yes, I know about that, the illegal invasion of Iraq, all of it), but just remember this, it could be you who is picked up and detained, and then you find out, whoops, that you can't call an attorney, even your family.
Courtesy of an article dated December 31, 2011 appearing in Before Its News
Comments