If you are merely "suspected" of supporting terrorism (the defining language is extremely vague), you can be sent to Guantanamo indefinitely, without possibility of hiring a lawyer, and absolutely no 5th amendment due process.
Sure, the government can use its discretion and not act on this, but why would they pass it if there was never any intention to use it in the future. Watch the Rand Paul video below where he explains that current laws fully take care of anything that the NDAA is concerned about.
Of course, this provision is tacked on to a military funding bill, so to vote against evisceration of the constitution is voting against funding the military. I wonder how much support this provision would have if it was the only thing in a bill?
The National Defense Authorization Act now gives the government the "right" to grab anyone on the street on mere suspicion "And when they say, 'I want my lawyer,' you tell them, 'Shut up. You don't get a lawyer.'"
Now that the government has the ability to grab a "suspected" American, what's to stop them from grabbing someone they know is not involved in supporting terrorism? And once they grab someone, they have absolutely no recourse. They cannot get a lawyer, there is absolutely no due process at all.
In the Ron Paul video below, Ron Paul said that the Obama administration wanted the power to jail a person for life even after being found innocent in a trial. Rand Paul was able to get that stopped.
Obama specifically asked to remove the provision in the Act that stated that American citizens would be exempt from the "prolonged detention" clause, and it was removed.
Ron Paul talks about the NDAA starting at 9:30:
No comments:
Post a Comment