“Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force…includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons…Detention under the law of war without trial”.
This clearly gives the power to the President and the military to detain anyone it chooses without trial. The theory behind this is that America is now part of the so-called 'battlefield",and that anyone captured on this 'battlefield' is therefore not subject to the protections of the legal system. This is not a left vs. right issue, it's an issue of citizens' rights, and further of human rights. No one human being, in this case the President of The United States, should have the ability to detain citizens without even filing charges against them or bringing them to trial.Now one could argue that President Obama has our best interests at heart, and would surely never use the military domestically for anything other than valid defense of the country. While I think that it's quite a leap to make, for the sake of argument let's presume that is the case. But what about the next President down the line? Do we want Mitt Romney to have that power? Newt Gingrich? Hilary Clinton? Someone else that's super scary and evil 50 years from now? The fact is if anyone, citizen or otherwise, is detained by the government for a legitimate purpose, the government should have no problem whatsoever providing evidence of this to a judge, and proving the case in a court of law.
Considering that the government's definition of "suspicious activity" now includes Ron Paul supporters, gun owners and veterans, amongst other things, the implications of this provision are dire. The real question is, will I have Wifi access in my FEMA Camp??
Please listen to Senator Rand Paul's speech below given on the house floor. He is one of the few standing up for our freedom and is introducing an amendment to strike this provision from the bill.
UPDATE: This bill has passed the Senate, though President Obama is apparently threatening to veto. Don't get all too excited kids...he is threatening to veto because he claims the bill doesn't give ENOUGH power to the Executive.
Does the amount of liberties eroding right before our eyes ever seem overwhelming? Sometimes it feels like we are living inside of a nightmare.
ReplyDeleteWhere are the Patriots who believe in the promise of America?
This country should not feel like "1984", the U.S. should be the land of the free & home of the brave.
-Brian
www.TheNewAmericanMedia.com
In reality, this is nothing new. It only reaffirms Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution which grants the government the power to suspend habeas corpus during times of war or when "public safety may require it." Lincoln used it during the Civil War. Not that I warrant such measures, but acting as if this is a mind-blowing turn of events is an overstatement.
ReplyDeleteGuess all is well then!
ReplyDeleteAlternate response : see my follow-up post
An overstatement is far less dangerous than a complacent one
ReplyDeleteA big problem with this bill is it confirms the War on Terror as indefinite and makes the US a battlefield, and US civilians as combatants.
ReplyDeleteYes, Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus, imprisoned dissenting journalists and lawmakers, and ordered the slaughter of civilians en masse. I sure hope these aren't the kind of things we'll start nodding our head to with the "well, Lincoln did it, so it must be great!" meme.
I'm not condoning the bill. It's an awful trend to continue. I just was pointing out it is not some new concept. And the War on Terror was already an indefinite venture. How do you win a war on an abstract concept like the War or Terror or the War on "Poverty" or "Drugs?" They are indefinite by nature, not because they are the footnote in a piece of legislation. The point that the legislation further infringes on domestic issues and rights is a valid issue to point out though
ReplyDelete