Battlefield USA – The Outcry Against Senate Bill 1867

Share

Amid a din of breathless, fear-induced bloviating, the US Senate voted on 28, November 2011, to approve amendments to the National Defence Authorizations Act (SB 1867), over President Obama’s threat of a veto. The outcry of pseudo-Libertarians, Leftists and media pundits centre on the language of Sections 1031 & 1032 of the amendments, that permits suspected terrorists captured within the borders of the US to be removed from the authority of civilian law enforcement and placed immediately in the custody of the US military. Pursuant to the authority granted under Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution, said individuals may be denied the privilege of a Writ of Habeas Corpus until the end of military hostilities. Naturally, certain people are concerned that this language opens the door to the detention of US citizens by the military. Yet nothing could be further from the truth.

There are times when such issues come to the fore that one may shrug it off as general ignorance. In the present case however, one can only conclude that those opposing this Bill are engaged in a spirited dance of prevarication. A simple reading of Subtitle D, Section 1032 (B) tells the story quite clearly wherein it reads that the provisions of Section 1032 shall not apply to a citizen or lawful resident of the United States.

Moreover, the preceding Sections expressly note that the law applies specifically to individuals associated with al-Queda, the Taliban and affiliated groups. As for persons in the US who knowingly and wilfully assist said groups in waging war against the people of the United States, it must be noted that under the Constitution Writ of Habeas Corpus is a privilege, not a right. That privilege may be rescinded in cases of invasion (and a terrorist cell is an invading hostile force) if public safety deems it necessary. In the present case, Writ of Habeas Corpus will be denied the parties belligerent.

There is much to be criticised in the National Defence Authorizations Act. In fact, there is ample Constitutional justification for its nullification in whole. If the detractors wanted to make that case, I would be solidly in their corner. What I cannot countenance is a disingenuous attempt to foment public outcry.

John Quincy Adams once opined that “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” Libertarians, Leftists, media pundits and President Obama would do themselves, and the rest of us, a favour by considering this little caveat instead of creating irrational public hysteria.