For the last several weeks, Internet sites have been buzzing about provisions in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. Many have questioned, without reason, whether parts of the bill could authorize the military to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely without a trial.
The provisions receiving the attention are in a section entitled “Counter-Terrorism,” specifically sections 1021 and 1022, which deal with the detention of those suspected of engaging in terrorism.
Libertarian-leaning conservatives and anti-war activists alike have fueled controversy by accusing Congress and President Obama of passing legislation that would infringe upon citizens’ rights.
“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,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch on the day the bill was signed into law. “In the past, Obama has lauded the importance of being on the right side of history, but today he is definitely on the wrong side.”
All of that is unfounded and untrue, of course. Such rhetoric is the reason for the proliferation of Internet sites that attempt to separate truth from fiction. It doesn’t stop Internet untruths from being blogged about, forwarded, and reposted, though. Some folks are not interested in the truth.
Independent reporting for Pine Bluff & Jefferson County since 1879.
Here is the truth: The law seeks to codify existing practices previously authorized by both the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force law and the 2004 Supreme Court decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.
These laws allow the president to detain U.S. citizens captured overseas who are members of terrorist organizations such as Al Qaida or the Taliban. Such an individual would still have the right to challenge detention through a petition for habeas corpus in federal court.
In addition, the NDAA in section 1021 specifically states: “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.”
The defense bill passed both chambers of Congress with broad bipartisan support, including all members of the Arkansas delegation.
“I believe that this language included in the NDAA is necessary to end ad hoc detention policies. This statutory language provides clarity and consistency to the detainee process,” said U.S. Tim Griffin, R-Little Rock, who served on the conference committee that worked on the language in the final bill.
“This will aid our troops overseas, protect us at home and ensure the civil liberties of our citizens,” Griffin said.
It’s interesting how easily people were convinced that Congress would pass and the president would sign a law that would allow U.S. citizens to be rounded up and detained without a trial in clear violation of the Sixth Amendment.
In an appearance by Griffin on a local radio station this week, one caller insisted the congressman was not telling the truth and called on him to come clean. The person was already convinced that the law would violate his rights, and no well-reasoned argument was going to change his mind.
Distrust of government is very real — the trust deficit, if you will.
Elected officials should be concerned. It seems the default position — at least for many — has become to believe that those we have elected do not have Americans’ best interest in mind when they enact laws.
Don’t misunderstand. Government and the people elected to it are not always squeaky clean, but they also are not out to wreck the lives of the people who elect them. That would be political suicide and politicians are against that.
However, those in Washington must hurry down the path of restoring public trust. They need to be as concerned — make that more concerned — about the trust deficit as the one that is mortgaging the nation’s financial future.
• • •
Jason Tolbert is an accountant and conservative political blogger.