Indefinite Detention

Its been almost a week since our president signed the National Defense Authorization Act and I am sure that many people don't even know what it is.  Part of the reason for the lack of knowledge of this act is that it was signed into effect on New Year's eve when almost everyone was distracted from politics.  What this act does for the most part is spell out how the military will be funded.  In addition to military funding, however, there are also some controversial provisions inserted in the act which can have grave consequences for our future in the United States.  The most controversial part of this, and the one with which most people are having the issues, is the ability for the military to detain a United States citizen indefinitely and without charge if they are suspected of being a terrorist.  This indefinite detention can persist as long as there is a war on terror.  The way it is looking right now, our supposed "war on terror" is a never ending war, and as such, US citizens can be detained for a very long time.  President Obama almost didn't sign this act, but in the end gave in after some of the wording was changed.  The most significant change was that the power to detain a person was taken out of the hands of the military and placed in the hands of the president (although it is still the military that will be physically detaining any terrorist suspects).  Along with the signing of the act, President Obama issued a statement that he would not, during his term in office, utilize this controversial provision.  (For a full article on the NDAA, click here.)

While Obama may not utilize the provision allowing him to detain suspected terrorist indefinitely, even if they are US citizens, it leaves the door wide open for any future president to come in and utilize the provision.  This provision has never been tested in the courts and one could only hope that if it was utilized, that the courts would quickly strike down any effort to indefinitely detain someone.  The true problem arises in that if this provision is enacted by a future president, there is no burden of proof placed upon him/her to show that a given person is a terrorist.  There is no reason that needs to be given other than they are suspected of terrorism in order for them to be held indefinitely.  All it would take, essentially, would be a few reports of suspicious activity that could or could not be terrorist related for the president to authorize the military to swoop in and detain someone.  That's it, plain and simple.  So where does that leave the citizens of the United States?  For the majority of us, it wouldn't be a problem, but for anyone who even looks like they could be a terrorist (based upon individual discretion) they could be in for a long stay in prison or some other detention center.  There have been many cases over the past decade in which people have been questioned in depth due to alleged reports or suspicious activity and in the end have been fully exonerated.  The NDAA changes everything.  All those people who were questioned and released, under this new act, could simply be detained indefinitely, potentially separating them from their families for years without any charges being filed. 

So where do we go from here then?  What is the use of writing about this if it is already signed into law?  I believe that we the citizens of the United States need to be aware of this, of the changes that are taking place behind closed doors.  We can now only hope that the Supreme Court will look at this provision and consider it in direct violation of our Constitution and get rid of it.  The ACLU has vowed to fight this provision and we can now only hope that they are successful.  While this little provision, thrust in amidst military funding jargon, is seemingly innocuous, the potential for abuse is rife.  Hopefully we will never have to witness or deal with the effects of this provision, but one can never tell these days.  With politicians becoming more and more distrusted with every passing year, it is hard to maintain faith that they will do the right thing.  If you look at the overall scheme of things, Obama's statement that went along with his signing saying he will never invoke this provision is pretty pointless.  He has less than a year of guaranteed time in office and after that, who knows what will happen.  The only way we can make a change at this point is to get involved (as I have said before) and take a stand for what we believe is right and just.  We need to become thorns in the sides of politicians, poking and prodding until they give in to our requests and demands.  After all, it is the citizens of the United States that voted them in, and as such we need to step up to the plate and assert ourselves.