A Slippery Slope

Two weeks ago a defense funding bill was passed through Congress and quietly signed by the President. We need defense and a military to protect our country so unlike the extension of the Bush tax cuts this bill, the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) made it through Congress and to the President's desk for signature will little bickering or chest thumping that has characterized the past three years of partisan brinksmanship.

But unlike past appropriations bills this one included something that has passed by many. With the holidays approaching the press and pundits gave it little attention. It was a provision in the bill that Americans potentially could be held in America indefinitely without a trial if suspected of terrorist or terrorist sympathizers activity. No mainstream citizen of the US condones terrorist activities but this would appear to be a tipping point in our country's history and a major violation of our US Constitution and legal system.

It should also be said that both the Bush administration and the Obama administration have interpreted other legislation which would allow them to hold certain al-Qaeda suspects indefinitely until the ceasing of terrorist hostilities. But this is the first time that this activity has been codified in a bill giving the military and the Executive Branch of the US Government the right to detain suspects indefinitely. Does this cross the line of the rights to a trail guaranteed in our Constitution?

Some say it does. Now I am for using every tool at our disposal to capture and interrogate and extract information out of those who wish to do us harm both here and on foreign soil. But it is important to clearly distinguish wartime rights of prisoners overseas and here domestically. It is important to clarify the rights of US citizens residing here legally during peacetime. I might even argue that under the right circumstances and overwhelming evidence US Citizens abroad could be treated differently than they would if they were performing the same acts on US soil. But to arbitrarily seek indefinite detention on US soil even in times of peace seems to go against some of the ideals on which our country was founded. Maybe this power will not be abused by the Obama administration or its successor, but what about those who will lead our country in the future? If this erosion of our rights takes place now, what will the next step in this process be?

If you think that this is a hypothetical question, just go back a few years and consider the Patriot Act. (Or what I like to call the Unpatriotic Act). In a time of national mourning and panic post 911 our government granted itself what was considered unprecedented power to search and listen in on those who were potentially considered terrorism suspects. It gave the government the right to look at telephone bills with the large phone companies seemingly willing participants. Libraries were required to disclose to law enforcement books checked out by suspected terrorism suspects and the rights to wire taps and warrants in terrorism cases were loosened dramatically. At the time these tactics were questioned by civil libertarians but the tide of public opinion in the wake of 911 made their constitutional queries seem unpatriotic. This was the beginning of the slippery slope that makes this most recent legislation's passing into law seem almost like a forgone conclusion and one that has gone largely unnoticed.

But several questions come up. While this law speaks primarily to al-Qaeda, what about domestic terrorism? It is no less of a potential threat. Prior to 911 the Oklahoma bombing was the most serious case of terrorism on US soil. How should suspects be treated in similar cases which to the families involved are no less despicable than the attack on Pearl Harbor or 911?

What sets us apart from a large part of the rest of the world is that we have a system that takes care of criminals and suspected criminals. We also have tools both physical and enacted laws that address crimes against individuals and crimes against humanity. They have worked pretty well up until now. That would include the prosecutions in both civilian and military criminal cases with terrorism both foreign and domestic. Why now do we need to change the dynamic and alter the Constitution of the United States, an example to many around the world? If we continue to trample on the rights of our citizens, even those accused of crimes against humanity, have not the terrorist really gotten what they were after in the first place?