Wednesday, September 26, 2012
More on NDAA indefinite detention
This article may help clarify the issues.The issue is not who will or might be detained or how the offense is defined. The issue is the government's power to detain. This power includes the power to detain/arrest U.S. Citizens on U.S. soil. How can a person defend themselves if they are never charged and tried? Although this might seem like something that is not likely to happen to a truly innocent person, that is not the issue. The government must not even be granted this power. How will this person who is wrongly detained be able to clear themselves?. The Pres. has promised never to abuse the law. Do you trust him? How much goes on that the Pres. doesn't even know about, or pretends not to know about. This is too important to take the risk. If you are arrested or detained in the U.S. by government, you have certain rights. PERIOD.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Having dealt with hostile verses peaceful scenarios while on active military duty, I do not understand what all the fuss is about regarding the latest NDAA's detention policy. 9/11 is a vivid example of such environmental posture change, which had nothing to do with compromising people's freedoms, but everything to do with securing their well-being. And the latter alone is what the NDAA's detention policy addresses. Nothing more. Of course, such a basic concept is apparently difficult for the black op conspiracy theorists among us.
ReplyDeletePS: I fully agree with Dr. Kessler that people do retain certain fundamental rights over and above any delegated power to government.
Delete44: Thanks for the comments. I apologize if I did not make my position clear. I think we both agree that we need policies to protect national security. I have no objection to detention on probable cause as long as the person's other rights are protected. The person is entitled to, for instance, a relatively quick preliminary judicial hearing on the detention, notice of the charges, a fair trial, etc. I believe, and the suit appears to be about, the potential lack of opportunity (hearing, trial, notice of charges, etc., which would give the person a right to challenge their detention, and ultimately get a fair and public trial. Certainly, these detainees should not just "disappear" without any opportunity to challenge their detention. That sounds like dictatorship tactics, not appropriate n a free society. I hope this clears things up.
ReplyDeleteA president's decision to detain citizens under the NDAA must be reasonable. That means having probable cause and allowing said detainee a fair opportunity to challenge their detention. IMHO, the NDAA's policy does not outweigh people's fundamental constitutional rights. That said, citizens actively engaged in support of an enemy threat(s) have trashed any constitutional protections they may have had. In other words, they're fair game on the battle field.
Delete44: Thanks! Agreed!
ReplyDelete