Levelheaded people can candidly disagree about what needs to be
done to oppose the tactics of terror, employed by radicals who are
hell-bent on killing Americans. We can have a rational debate
regarding the extent to which robust American interventionism
abroad sows the seeds of hatred. Defense policy presents big
questions ranging from homeland security, to the use of private
military contractors, to our involvement in NATO, and the budget
priorities of national security. There’s a galaxy of issues out
there for use to discuss, debate, and dispute.
However, when I read the language of the National Defense
Authorization Act (S.
1867), a bill co-sponsored by the GOP’s Sen. John McCain and
Democratic Sen. Carl Levin, I could not process a policy so
hysterically paradoxical to the freedom, liberty and constitution
we proclaim to love.
Glenn Greenwald over at Salon identifies the
most alarming aspects of the bill:
(1) mandates that all accused Terrorists
be indefinitely imprisoned by the military rather than in the
civilian court system; it also unquestionably permits (but
does not mandate) that even U.S. citizens on U.S. soil accused of
Terrorism be held by the military rather than charged in the
civilian court system (Sec. 1032);
(2) renews the 2001 Authorization to Use
Military Force (AUMF)
with more expansive language: to allow force (and military
detention) against not only those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks
and countries which harbored them, but also anyone who
“substantially supports” Al Qaeda, the Taliban or
“associated forces” (Sec. 1031); and,
(3) imposes new restrictions on the U.S.
Government’s ability to transfer detainees out of Guantanamo (Secs.
1033-35).
While I’m certain Greenwald isn’t the most popular policy
mandarin among The Spectacle’s readership, he has
isolated an authentic threat. Likewise, I’m not always on
board with Rep. Paul, but I was distressed by his
remarks that this potential suspension of due process and
civilian trial would be the first of its sort since the American
Civil War. We’ve had a decade to process the lessons of 9/11. I
always thought that the wars being fought overseas would eventually
draw to a close. I wouldn’t have guessed that they’d simply embed
themselves right here at home. Perhaps we’ve become addicted to our
fear. Perhaps it gives us some small comfort to assume that we’re
being well protected.
But consider the context. We’re not talking about the hassle of
dealing with that “crack squad of savvy, motivated personnel”
manning hand-wands and sporting royal blue TSA frocks. I suppose we
can live with in a world where our liquids, gels and aerosols must
be tucked ever-so-less-ominously into 3.4 oz. containers.
“Enhanced pat-downs” still seem ridiculous…but I
digress.
This bill represents a shocking, yet formal codification of what
we’ve come to understand as right and proper in a post-9/11
world.
Some of you may be willing to accept this as a necessary
evil…the overhead cost of a living in a country that’s
increasingly less free than we’d like to admit. Some of you may be
comfortable being told this makes you safer. I happen to prefer the
modest benefits of due process and that old chestnut habeus
corpus.
I’m not willing to engage in conspiracy theorizing regarding the
senators’ intentions for this bill. I don’t believe they’re
initiating some Orwellian super-state. They’re probably very well
intentioned. However, I’m personally disinclined to tolerate this
“security” grotesquerie masquerading as the responsible stewardship
of our collective safety. I refuse to surrender my freedoms because
I’m being told to be afraid. Something about “the land of the free,
and the home of the brave,” keeps ringing in my ears.
