America’s Domestic Terror

United States history has seen a correlation between war and the overstepping of constitutional rights for what is said to be the sake of safety and national defense.

The current war on terrorism is by no means an exception to this rule and has seen the passing of legislation that has journalists, politicians and everyday U.S. citizens up in arms over civil rights and liberties.

While the threat of Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT IP Act (PIPA), both meant to end online piracy with the possibility of more harmful repercussions for American citizens, are more recent in the line of bills with consequences that could and would overstep constitutional rights, there is one that has very nearly slipped under the public radar.

Every year the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is passed. The act allows funds to be allocated to the armed forces for national defense. This year would have been no different had the NDAA for fiscal year 2012 not included sub-sections 1021 and 1022, under Title X, subtitle D.

Section 1021 allows for the indefinite detention of both American and non-American citizens suspected of supporting or being part of "al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in the hostilities against the United States" without trial, by order of the president.

Once detained, the suspect in question can be tried in the United States, or as the bill states, "transferred to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity."

An amendment was made that would have forbidden the detention of American citizens without trial, but was voted down by congress and replaced by a compromise amendment that clarifies "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."

A final note is made on the bill explaining that the section would neither limit nor expand the authority of the President.

Section 1022 refers to the requirement for military custody. The section explains that with the exception of few cases, those detained by law under Section 1021 will be detained by "Armed Forces of the United States…in military custody pending disposition under the law of war."

It is also noted under 1022 that "The requirement to detain a person in military custody…does not extend to citizens of the United States," and that for lawful resident aliens, the requirement is on a case-by-case basis, depending on the "conduct taking place within the United States".

The bill as a whole, including both sections 1021 and 1022, was passed in Senate on Dec. 1, 2011 by a yea-nay vote of 93-7. President Obama signed the bill into law on Dec. 31, 2011, issuing with it a signing statement.

But this power, however unconstitutional in the eyes of the American people, is not new, and has been in effect since the passing of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).

In his signing statement, President Obama explained that, "This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then."

He then went on to speak for his administration by saying, "My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF."

While true, the idea that this new law is not really new, but a reaffirmation of what has been for well over a decade now, those in opposition of the bill find it to be in clear violation of constitutional rights.

In an interview for an article written by Eric Peters, Anthony Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, describes the act as "Particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield."

Though President Obama said in his signing statement that neither he nor his administration would "authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," those like Romero find little solace.

Even if President Obama does not make use of the law, there is always a concern for the person taking his place, and what they might do with that kind of power.

In an interview with the Journal, Dr. John Rector, a professor in the history department, explained that from a historians perspective, the overstepping of constitutional rights is not new, citing the detention centers created by President Franklin during World War II, as well as Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus.

"In principle, the bill could be very dangerous, but it depends on the people," Rector said, later explaining that often in times of war, the public are willing to relinquish rights in order to be protected.

The question then stands: when is enough, enough?

Dr. Max Geier, a history professor at Western and the department head, explained that though the bill says that it does not limit the President's abilities, it still shows that "the government is willing to violate constitutional rights," and that we, as the U.S. public are "dependent on the goodwill of those in power."