Over the past 10 years, Congress has rightly received a tremendous amount of criticism for its activities and decisions. It’s been thought of as an uncaring, incompetent and nepotistic institution. It’s perceived to be out of touch with American society, featuring representatives who fail to understand the interests of the people they supposedly represent. In addition to these criticisms, Congress is an out-and-out malevolent entity — a strong statement, but provable nonetheless. Take, for example, this year’s version of the National Defense Authorization Act — a military funding bill enacted for about the last 48 years — which the Senate recently passed. It’s a total threat to the concept of due process and its implications are dire.
What’s the problem with this version? Put simply, provisions in it massively expand the ability of the U.S. government to infringe on the constitutional liberties of American citizens. The basis of logic is that the country is at war against the general concept of terrorism. As such, the U.S. military will be given the ability to detain Americans deemed to be consorting with terrorist suspects. These citizens could be held for the duration of hostilities (which could be indefinite). The legislation’s language is incredibly vague and can be legally stretched to encompass any number of activities and associations.
Even though there have been no major terrorist attacks in America for the past 10 years, the War on Terror is now being used as an excuse to expand the government’s ability to oppress. There is no point in massively expanding government powers out of paranoia and the desire for greater institutional authority. It’s obvious this legislation is not based on a real situation.
While this bill is a legal rights disaster, it is barely receiving any news coverage. One person has taken notice — President Barack Obama has claimed he will veto this bill. Before you get excited, it’s not because he’s worried about infringing on American constitutional liberties. From the words of White House spokesman Jay Carney, “Any bill that challenges or constrains the president’s critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the nation would prompt his senior advisers to recommend a veto.” What does this mean? It means that Obama will veto not because it interferes with human rights, but instead because it interferes with executive authority to interfere with human rights.
Obama isn’t the only one at fault here, either. How is the coverage on this bill (zero) even defensible? It’s entirely absurd that a bill granting the U.S. military the power to seize any American suspected of consorting with terrorists and detain them without trial is not being hounded by the media. So far, the only group to make a strong stand against it is the American Civil Liberties Union, which is not a major media corporation. The checks and balances system is intended to stop this sort of legislation, but it’s failed utterly when every branch of government is as disinterested in human rights as the other. Based on its track record, the Supreme Court won’t overturn the bill. Obama is more concerned with presidential power.
The National Defense Authorization Act, of course, easily passed through Congress. Possibly the worst part is that no one will notice until it’s too late.
Tom Bradtke is a senior history major. He can be reached at bradtke@umdbk.com.
