"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Finally, Washington has delivered something for which Americans have been praying for years: a whole lotta bipartisanship. Shame it's not for a worthy cause.
In collective lack of regard for the American Constitution, President Obama and Congress have approved the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. The legislation is supposed to provide the money for the Pentagon to keep America safe. This year, however, that safety will come not only from foreign invaders but also from US citizens who are suspected of terrorism.
The new NDAA effectively allows the military to act on American soil and detain indefinitely anyone, including a US citizen, suspected of terrorism.
I guess this is a codification of other existing measures, even if the military has historically not been given such powers inside the US. But to say this is OK because detentions were sanctioned by the Bush Administration is like saying, "Honey, I think we can stop pretending I don't beat you up; it's a fact now and I ain't stopping any time soon."
With Congress's approval ratings at the level of bottom-feeding, many rights activists hoped the US Human Rights Upholder-in-Chief, also known as That Guy who Gave Awesome Speeches Before He Was Elected, would veto the legislation. After all, President Obama did threaten to block an earlier, even harsher version of the bill. The White House, however, announced that he would put his signature on this edition. Just call it a big "Screw You" to everyone concerned about habeas corpus and all that other Latin gibberish about which hard-working Americans supposedly care little.
Maybe it was to be expected. Obama, after all, is a politician and a politician's first and foremost job is to remain in office so at best she/he can accomplish --- or claim to be accomplishing --- their projects. I'll give Obama the benefit of doubt and pretend he wants to beat "Newt Romney" so he can ring the changes that matter to him. You know, changes like making Goldman Sachs his number one donor instead of number two.
If I were Tom Friedman, noted columnist for The New York Times and best-selling author, I would say something like, "When you've sunk to the bottom of the ocean, take a deep breath and fight the winds." But I prefer to be clear: the outcome of this politics --- with the authorisation of the US military to detain without restriction inside America --- is not the product of considered protection of "national security".
No, this is the gift of a government that is incompetent, a government that has started a war that it doesn't know how to end. American leaders may get every wannabe suicide bomber and Jihadist warrior his/her moment of infamy before they figure out that there are ways of protecting the American people other than depriving them of their rights. And the cause of the government's ineptitude is simple: in democratic societies, the leaders' views, abilities and actions to a large degree mirror that of their constituents, those who vote and those who pay for the campaigns.
The latter is motivated --- admit it, few things drive people more than money --- while the former has become lazy. It's forgotten that rights aren't given. Today, the American voter is not motivated enough to fight for those rights by coming onto the streets. That has worked. It changed America forever only half a century ago. But these days Martin Luther King Jr. isn't a symbol of human rights, he's just a good name to stick on schools.
There's a hypothesis called "safety in numbers". To put it simply, the larger the size of a herd of herbivores is, the smaller the chances of an individual animal falling victim to a predator. So maybe more than 300 million Americans, not yet ready to stand up to the predators who are depriving them of their rights, can have the reassurance. So rejoice! Biology may be on their side a bit: at best, a few thousand out of the 300+ million might fall victim to the new bill.
When the "War on Terror" is finally 'won', when the economy is in much better shape, when we have made it to Mars, maybe Americans will finally start feeling like they should vote for folks who can guarantee first their constitutional rights. Maybe then they will recall that if America was built on a principle --- humans have rights which are inalienable --- that that does not include a provision that sticking the label "terrorist" on someone deprives him/her of all those rights.