NDAA threatens freedom

The scales of justice are no longer balanced. Ever since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Americans have been frightened into believing that the suspension of personal liberties is a necessary and reasonable price to pay for national security. This imbalance was further exaggerated when President Obama signed H.R.1540, The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), into law Dec. 31, 2011. The counter-terrorism provisions of Sections 1021 and 1022 have turned what would have been an otherwise routine, annual military budget, into part of an alarming trend to limit freedom in the name of safety. These sections have caused an a outcry among civil liberties organizations and drawn criticism from many law makers and the very President who signed the act. As college students, we should be concerned as well.

Sections 1021 and 1022 allow the U.S. military to indefinitely detain without trial, anyone suspected of involvement in terrorism, including American civilians on American soil, and provides for the eventual trials to be carried out by military commissions rather than civilian courts. This portion of the NDAA practically annihilates due process of law as provided by the fifth and sixth amendments of the Constitution.

While the ugly reality of terrorism must be dealt with aggressively, this law is so broadly constructed that it leaves the door wide open to the same sort of governmental abuse that was criticized during the Arab spring. No trial means no checks and balances and any barriers between personal liberty and national security interests all but disappear.

Can a college student writing a paper about al-Qaida be picked up and held by the armed forces based on research found on his or her computer? Will students be intimidated into giving up their right to peaceful protest for fear of being labelled and investigated as dangerous dissidents who will have all rights to a fair trial stripped away?

As students in an institution of higher learning, we are encouraged to ask questions and value the free flow of ideas. We don't want to find ourselves in a position where overzealous attempts to curtail terrorism dampen our freedom of speech through fear of government retaliation.

Proponents of the NDAA such as Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina said that when Americans helping al-Qaida ask for a lawyer, they will be told by interrogators "you don't have a right to a lawyer because you're a military threat." But how can their status as enemy combatants or sympathizers of al-Qaida be proven without due process?

Although sections of the law exempt American citizens from the requirement of military detention and custody, the Authorization for Use of Military Force signed by President George W. Bush Sept. 18, 2001 affords the President so much discretion that it is not clear what the effect of the NDAA will be.

In light of this potential for ambiguity, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California proposed an amendment to clarify that the military custody provisions of the NDAA only applied to Americans "captured abroad", but the amendment was defeated by a vote of 55 to 45.

This defeat shows deliberate intent to allow Americans to be taken into custody and held by the military on American soil. Such provisions shift law enforcement authority from the Department of Justice to the Department of Defense, paving the way for martial law. While these provisions are intended to fight the war on terror, they are being proposed with no time constraints or other conditions to prevent abuses.

In a press release/signing statement President Obama said that while he had serious reservations with the provisions that "regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists", he signed it anyway, partly because his administration would only "interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded."

Unfortunately, this you're-just-gonna-have-to- trust-me approach doesn't work and is dangerous.

It allows sloppy, lazy and even insidious lawmaking to occur and ignores the possibility for abuse by this and future administrations. That kind of leadership is not acceptable.

As Sen. Bernie Sanders from Vermont said, "While we must aggressively pursue international terrorists and all of those who would do us harm, we must do it in a way that protects the Constitution and the civil liberties which make us proud to be Americans."