The President of the United States, partially elected on his intimate knowledge of the US Constitution, has forsaken his oath to that document and signed into law measures which allow for the imprisonment of US citizens inside the US without regard for their constitutionally guaranteed rights. The most basic human freedoms our country has stood for are being washed away before our very eyes. What once was old is new again; these words could just as easily have been spoken in the late 1700's as the early 2000's.
At the tail end of 2011, while the mainstream media was distracted with dropping balls and smiling celebrities, President Obama signed into law the NDAA. Certain provisions of the NDAA allow for the President to declare a US citizen within the US an enemy combatant and imprison them indefinitely without a trial. This is in direct violation of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, which states that no one can "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," as well as the 6th Amendment, which guarantees "the right to a speedy and public trial" and the right to know what you're accused of and face your accuser, among other rights.
In 1798, the 2nd President of the United States, John Adams, signatory of the Declaration of Independence and influential voice in the creation of the US Constitution (as well as staunch defender of said Constitution as one of the authors of the Federalist Papers), signed into law a series of measures that collectively became known as the Alien and Sedition Acts. Here's a taste of what these Acts entailed courtesy of USHistory.org:
The most controversial of the new laws permitting strong government control over individual actions was the SEDITION ACT. In essence, this Act prohibited public opposition to the government. Fines and imprisonment could be used against those who "write, print, utter, or publish . . . any false, scandalous and malicious writing" against the government.
Under the terms of this law over 20 Republican newspaper editors were arrested and some were imprisoned. The most dramatic victim of the law was REPRESENTATIVE MATTHEW LYON of Vermont. His letter that criticized President Adams' "unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and self avarice" caused him to be imprisoned. While Federalists sent Lyon to prison for his opinions, his constituents reelected him to Congress even from his jail cell.
At the time, many Americans were just as appalled by blatant disregard for the Constitution as we are today. Here is a quote from a US Representative who was serving at the time, taken from page 64 of Robert V. Remini's fantastic book The House: The History of the House of Representatives.
Another Republican leader in the House, Edward Livingston of New York, blasted the alien bill for allowing John Adams, "to expel without notice and without a hearing, any non-citizen who excited the President's suspicions." Who knows, he exclaimed, what conduct will arouse suspicion - perhaps "a careless word, perhaps misrepresented or never spoken may be sufficient evidence, a look ... an idle gesture.... Judiciary power is taken from the courts and given to the Executive.... The trial by jury is abolished.... All is dark, silence, mystery, and suspicion."
Words that could have just as well been spoken of the NDAA.
President Obama's signing of the NDAA is a betrayal of the principles he professed during his first presidential campaign. I suspect many of my age, who also came into political awareness under the administration of George W. Bush, became Democrats rather than Republicans partially because we were so disgusted by Guantanamo Bay, the so-called Patriot Act, and other similar factors. This blight on Obama's record isn't just an average broken promise from a politician, I suspect that for many of us it is an almost personal betrayal, making us question perhaps not just our political affiliation but the political process as a whole. For me, personally, this was the deciding factor in my decision to not join Obama For America and fight to get the President reelected. The man was a constitutional law professor for Crom's sake, it seems unlikely he doesn't understand the gravity of what he's done, and those credentials make his actions all the more unexpected and repulsive.
Yet, even with all the emotional baggage I can acknowledge I carry about that, it's still hard for me to fathom one of the Founding Fathers - someone who actually took part in the creation of our form of government, its separated powers, and its guaranteed rights (John Adams was Vice President when the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution) - seeing fit to bestow such an obscene amount of unchecked power upon the executive. If it's repulsive for a President who is a constitutional expert to do something like the NDAA, there's truly nothing one can say to adequately describe one of the Founding Fathers signing the Alien and Sedition Acts into law that wouldn't sound like the height of hyperbole.
For all the symbolism involved here, there's also the question of practical application. In a signing statement issued by President Obama when he signed the NDAA into law, he tried to clarify:
I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.
If you have to make a qualifier that drastic, that might be your first clue that maybe you should have vetoed the bill.
But back to the comparison at hand, it seems in terms of directly impacting the lives of Americans immediately, these Orwellian provisions of the NDAA probably won't do a lot. On the other hand, it was referenced above that after John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts he went right to work having people imprisoned for writing or saying things he wasn't a fan of, 1st Amendment be damned. At first glance, in terms of real impact on real people, the Alien and Sedition Acts seem to be much worse than the NDAA. After all, if President Obama were as bad as President Adams, wouldn't Ron Paul already be in jail?
The problem with that logic is that the Alien and Sedition Acts are long gone. They've affected who they were going to affect, and in our lives now we don't really need to worry about them (except that something like them could happen again, which is evidently the case). The Orwellian provisions of the NDAA, conversely, could be around for years and even decades to come. And so what if Obama is benevolent enough to not imprison Americans indefinitely without trial? He has signed into law the ability of the President to do just that - handing over that ability to the next President, and the next, and the next. If and when they use that ability, the proverbial - at least, let's hope it's just proverbial - blood will be on Obama's hands. There is a history yet to be written, and this President who has offered up the opposite of the type of audacity we believed in could well wind up being responsible for atrocities we're probably better off not trying to conjure up in our imaginations.
Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 12:44 PM PT: On the good suggestion by elmo and AaronInSanDiego (my fellow Aaron), here are the NDAA provisions in question, courtesy of http://www.gpo.gov/...
SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF
THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS
PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40;
50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces
of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section
is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged
in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or
has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
forces.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may
include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until
the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for
Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States
Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009
(title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent
tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country
of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit
or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the
Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—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.
(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—The Secretary
of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application
of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’
for purposes of subsection (b)(2). H. R. 1540—266
SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.
(a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the
Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described
in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities
authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force
(Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition
under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1)
shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under
section 1021 who is determined—
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an
associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant
to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or
carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the
United States or its coalition partners.
(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—For purposes of this
subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war
has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no
transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section
shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1028.
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The President may
waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits
to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is
in the national security interests of the United States.
(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL
RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis
of conduct taking place within the United States, except to
the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
(c) IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and
submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.
(2) ELEMENTS.—The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to
make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the
process by which such determinations are to be made.
(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the
interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody
or control of the United States.
(C) Procedures providing that a determination under
subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until
after the conclusion of an interrogation which is ongoing
at the time the determination is made and does not require
the interruption of any such ongoing interrogation. H. R. 1540—267
(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when
intelligence, law enforcement, or other Government officials
of the United States are granted access to an individual
who remains in the custody of a third country.
(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national
security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted
for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a
third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the
United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.
(d) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security
authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other
domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person,
regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.
(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect on the
date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection
(a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control
of the United States on or after that effective date.