Indefinite Military Detention Of US Citizens Win For Terrori

It's not just the hundreds of thousands of members in the alternative media community that are pointing out the dangers to liberty posed by government's anti-terror legislation. In this speech calling for the removal of the detainee provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act, Senator Paul highlights, in surprising detail, activities that are now considered by Homeland security and law enforcement to be suspicious and potentially terroristic.

"Someone missing fingers on their hands is a suspect according to the Department of Justice. Someone who has guns, someone who has ammunition that is weatherproofed, someone who has more than seven days of food in their house can be considered a potential terrorist."

"If you are suspected by these activities do you want the government to have the ability to send you to Guantanamo Bay for indefinite detention?"

It's obvious to anyone paying attention that the war on terror is being used as the premise to further restrict the individual liberties of American citizens.

The NDAA's military detention provisions thus represent a frontal attack on the Fifth Amendment (which once guaranteed due process) and the Sixth Amendment (which once ensured the rights to trial, access to counsel and an opportunity to confront accusers). They also deeply erode the First Amendment - but in a less obvious way, and a way in which any activist would do well to consider.

The NDAA would vastly enhance those government powers, creating the authority to detain indefinitely without trial. Mere accusation would be enough to deny freedom to law-abiding people.

The NDAA would expand those assaults by eliminating the need to prosecute. In the hands of a president, attorney general, US attorney, or even, potentially, state or local prosecutors willing to use their powers for political purposes, it offers the legal authority for severe repression.

The vote on the Udall Amendment, which would have forbidden the indefinite detention of US civilians, was defeated by a vote of 60-38 in the Senate, including all but three of the senators from the party that's constantly pretending to be anxious over an intrusively big government.

The Republicans who argued against the measure on the floor of the Senate naturally attributed their effective support for the abolition of the Fourth Amendment to the threat posed by terrorism. The White House has threatened to veto the NDAA, but not because the detention policies grant too much power to law enforcement - instead, because they grant too little (my emphasis added)

While no one has any indication that the government will begin indefinitely imprisoning nonviolent dissenters, the mere loss of impediments is reason enough to prick up one's ears with suspicion.