Battlefield America: How 370 Politicians Took Away Our Rights

66

By politicalzealot

December 31st, 2011 is a day that will be remembered throughout history. It was that day that President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which codified into law the ability for the United States government to detain American citizens indefinitely without trial. How did this happen? Why is there not an uproar against the NDAA?

This happened through the bipartisan vote of 86 Senators and 283 House members. President Obama signing the law makes 370 total politicians that have effectively stripped the Constitutional rights of everyday Americans in order to 'fight terrorism'. The provision which allows the indefinite detention of Americans was brought about in a secret meeting between Senator Carl Levin and John McCain behind closed doors and passed without debate.

Key conservatives such as Allen West and Marco Rubio are denying that the NDAA allows for the indefinite detainment of American citizens. Allen West issued a statement on his blog saying in bold red letters that the NDAA, "Reaffirms the lawful detention of individuals from al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces engaged in armed conflict with the United States, without extending new authority to detain U.S. citizens."

Marco Rubio mirrored his response stating in a letter that, "In particular, some people are wrongly suggesting that this legislation will allow the military to capture and indefinitely detain any American citizen... those particular assertions could not be further from the truth."

Other Senators have heralded the NDAA as necessary to continue to fight the War on Terrorism. Lindsey Graham is one such Senator and released the video below explaining his stance on the NDAA.

Senator Graham said about the NDAA that, "We're no longer are we in the box of having to read Miranda rights to terrorists" and that, "If you can detain somebody overseas wanting to attack America and not provide them a lawyer and Miranda rights you should be able to do it here because this is the battlefield."

Battlefield America. That is the new line being fed to the American people to justify this heinous bill which strips our rights away. Allen West was interviewed by Glenn Beck and was asked about the NDAA in mid December. In that interview, West said that "this is a different type of battlefield."

Starting at 5:10, West goes into detail as to why he thinks a terrorist is a terrorist and that if you are branded as such, even if you are an American citizen (which Beck questions him specifically on), you should go to Guantanamo. He said that this battlefield is different and that we have to treat it differently.

When President Obama signed the NDAA into law, he issued a signing statement. Previously, President Obama had promised to not issue signing statements when signing legislation. The seriousness of the NDAA though obviously changed his mind. In the signing statement President Obama said, "The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists."

We are at a very dangerous crossroads now in our history. We now have a government that has authorized itself to indefinitely detain anyone it determines is a terrorist. This authorization was passed by bipartisan support of 369 members of Congress and signed by the President of the United States. It is a clear violation rights provided to us under the Constitution of the United States. Local governments have already shown they can crack down on First Amendment rights of Americans protesting. Now imagine if those acts are declared terrorism. Yet there is barely a whisper, barely an outcry against the measure.

I suspect the reason why there is barely a whisper or an outcry against the NDAA is that the whole thing is hard to believe. Americans cannot be detained indefinitely without trial! We have rights as Americans! What you are saying will never happen! You are over-reacting! I am sure similar things were said throughout history as oppressive governments slowly took control over its citizens.

This whole thing is being done to protect the homeland and to allow our government to fight terrorists in a changing 'battlefield'. The government is telling us that this is necessary to protect us from the evil that exists in the world. I have heard that line before and it didn't end well.

"An evil exists that threatens every man, women and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland." ~Adolf Hitler when announcing the Gestapo to the people

The Fuhrer: Hitler's Rise to Power
Amazon Price: $11.99
List Price: $16.95
Detention in the 'War on Terror': Can Human Rights Fight Back?
Amazon Price: $49.44
List Price: $99.00
Habeas Corpus after 9/11: Confronting America's New Global Detention System
Amazon Price: $29.39
List Price: $39.00

Don't take my word for it. Check out Amnesty International's warning. Don't think they know what they are talking about? How about 3 constitutional experts like Glenn Greenwald, Ron Paul, and Jonathan Turley. Find me similar experts claiming this didn't just happen the way I described it please. I would love to sleep soundly tonight!

Comments

lovemychris profile image

lovemychris Level 5 Commenter 4 months ago

Allen West is right, as I had heard before. This is a bill for the "usual" terrorist suspects, not "any" American citizen. And it is nothing new from the MCA that was passed in 2006.

Obama said he had reservations, but did it because of the financial support it awarded to soldiers, and for the safety of the American people. Plus, Habeus Corpus is still there with the courts.

From what I read, people are upset by the ambiguity of the language, but it will really more depend on who is president.

So--those who hate Obama will be more disturbed than had McCain been pres, and vice a versa. As I was scared for my freedom from 2000-2008, because Bush was pres.

And the bill for Martial Law was signed by Reagan. And even that people say goes back to the 1700's or so!

I'm not holding this as a threat to my freedom. I'm more worried about my reproductive rights, which will have a direct effect on me and my 3 girls...a chilling one.

But I understand the worry this causes.

It just does not bother me anymore.

politicalzealot profile image

politicalzealot Hub Author 4 months ago

"but it will really more depend on who is president."

That statement, which Allen West reflected when he said that elections have consequences, is the problem. The fact that it is ambiguous is the problem. Our rights as American citizens should not be ambiguous.

Thanks for commenting!

lovemychris profile image

lovemychris Level 5 Commenter 4 months ago

This is EXACTLY how I feel about my rights as a woman, which are bandied about all the time. Welcome to my world.

and your welcome ;)

Submit a Comment
Members and Guests

Sign in or sign up and post using a hubpages account.



    • No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked
    • Comments are not for promoting your Hubs or other sites

    Please wait working