Today – March 1st – the NDAA Goes Into Effect: Welcome to the End of the Rule of Law … Until It’s Repealed

Anti-NDAA action at Congressman Hunter's office, Feb. 3, 2012. Photo by Hugh Moore.

Passed by both Congressional chambers in December, signed into law by President Obama on December 31st, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 goes into effect today, March 1, 2012.

This is the Act that allows the indefinite detention of American citizens on American soil by our government.  It is the Act that allows the US military to be used as law enforcement inside the borders of the country – for the first time since the Civil War. The Act effectively disembowels the Bill of Rights – the Charter of our basic and fundamental rights as American citizens.

From now until the worst of its language is overruled or repealed, ours is not a nation ruled by those laws and provisions of rights laid down over two centuries ago, but a nation ruled by the whims of whomever is in the White House.  Welcome to the end of the rule of law in this nation.

The OB Rag has written extensively about the NDAA of 2012, such as the post Why Congress Needs to Feel Our Anger Over the NDAA of 2012. It said :

The Act includes provisions that would allow for the indefinite detention of American citizens without any recourse to legal interventions or civil rights if accused of a “belligerent act” or any terror-related offense.

These provisions mean that anyone of us – or any group of us – could be imprisoned without arraignment, without access to a lawyer, without access to habeas corpus, without a jury trial, without due process – without the protection of the Bill of Rights, our basic, fundamental rights as citizens.

And explained:

Why the NDAA of 2012 Is So Bad

The Act violates the Fifth Amendment right to due process of law; it violates the Sixth Amendment right to trial, as well as the Posse Comitatus Act which prohibits the domestic deployment of the military as law enforcement.

Activists could be indefinitely detained. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies treat peace, environmental, animal-rights, and anti-tax activists as “terrorists”. By legalizing the indefinite detention of anyone accused of a terror-related crime, this Act gives the federal government the unchecked power to silence critics, deny the right to trial, and override the presumption of innocence.

The heads of the FBI, Defense and National Intelligence, the chairs of Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees were all opposed to this Act. They all could see that indefinite detentions would threaten Constitutional rights, force the military to perform domestic law enforcement which it is ill-prepared to do and erode trust in our justice system. Even President Obama had reservations initially about the bill before he signed it, and then when he signed it, he issued a “Signing Statement” that supposedly assured us that his Administration would not use the Act to violate the rights of American citizens. But – we ask – what about future Administrations and Presidents?

In addition, military detention without trial removes the courts from our system of checks and balances. The NDAA erodes the separation of powers as well as individual rights.

The NDAA passed without a single Congressional hearing and over the objections of Congressional committees denied the chance to review it. Many members of Congress did not and still do not even understand it. The mainstream corporate media did not cover any of the Act’s provisions, and we did not have any national debate over such drastic changes to our basic, fundamental rights.

 The Push Back Against the NDAA

It is not all hopeless, of course.  There is a visible push back against the passage of this dastardly Act. The NDAA has spawned new protest groups that have pledged to fight it- such as the Bill of Rights Defense Committee and the StopNDAA. It has also resulted in a flurry of bills introduced in the House and Senate that would repeal the Act.

And locally, the Act has caused local activists to form a coalition of sorts  – Save the Bill of Rights – here in San Diego.  This group has been meeting regularly, sponsored actions at local Congressional offices, and a large rally in downtown San Diego when the State Democrats held their convention here. The group has a website – SavetheBillofRights.net – and is planning future actions and teach-ins about the issue.

 Law Suit Against Act

A lawsuit against the United States government was filed this week on behalf of a group of plaintiffs that includes Pulitzer prize-winning author Chris Hedges, Professor Noam Chomsky, the Pentagon Papers’ Daniel Ellsberg, an Icelandic Parliamentarian, and three women activists engaged in work they believe will put them in imminent danger under the NDAA.

Virginia Senate Passes Anti-NDAA Measure

Just recently, the Virginia Senate voted 39 to 1 in favor of House Bill 1160 (HB1160), the “NDAA Nullification Act.” The legislation would codify in law that no agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia – including defense forces and national guard troops, will comply with or assist the federal government in any way under it’s newly claimed powers to arrest and detain without due process.

Members of Congress have also offered new bills:

 Senate Bill 2003 – sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein – called the Due Process Guarantee Act – is to clarify that military actions, armed conflicts, and wars cannot authorize the detention of American citizens or lawful permanent residents without charges or trial.

House Bill 3702 is the companion bill for the House sponsored by Rep. John Garamendi of California.

 House Bill 3785 – Sponsored by Rep. Ron Paul – would repeal an onerous provision of the NDAA of 2012.

 House Bill 3676 – sponsored by Rep. Jeffrey Landry with 58 co-sponsors – including Susan Davis. It would amend the NDAA to specifically state that US citizens may not be detained without all the rights of due process or established by the Constitution.

New Bill Introduced to Amend the NDAA

A new bill – H.R.4092 – has also just been introduced by Representative Chris Gibson, a Republican of the New York 20th District, which would amend the NDAA of 2012 “to provide clarification of the relationship of certain constitutional rights to provisions of law relating to the military detention of certain covered person.” The bill was referred to the Committee on Armed Services and to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Here’s the language of HR 4092:

 A BILL

 To amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 to provide clarification of the relationship of certain constitutional rights to provisions of law relating to the military detention of certain covered person.

 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF RELATIONSHIP OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO PROVISIONS OF LAW RELATING TO THE MILITARY DETENTION OF CERTAIN COVERED PERSONS.

 The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) is amended–

(1) in section 1021, by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(g) Preservation of Constitutional Rights- Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the writ of habeas corpus shall remain available to any individual detained within the United States and no American citizen or lawful resident may be detained without all the rights of due process to include, but not limited to–

`(1) the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury;

`(2) the right to be informed of the nature of the accusation;

`(3) the right to be confronted with the witnesses against them;

`(4) the right to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in their favor;

`(5) the right to have the assistance of legal counsel; and

`(6) all other rights afforded to them by the Constitution of the United States.’; and

(2) in section 1022, by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(f) Preservation of Constitutional Rights- Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the writ of habeas corpus shall remain available to any individual detained within the United States and no American citizen or lawful resident may be detained without all the rights of due process to include, but not limited to–

`(1) the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury;

`(2) the right to be informed of the nature of the accusation;

`(3) the right to be confronted with the witnesses against them;

`(4) the right to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in their favor;

`(5) the right to have the assistance of legal counsel; and

`(6) all other rights afforded to them by the Constitution of the United States.’.