Congress Sends Bill To President Stripping Citizens Of Due Process Rights (a/k/a The Martial Law Act)

It's been called the Martial Law Act because of the dangerous language included in it that authorizes the federal government to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens it deems to pose a threat to national security based on the thinnest of allegations linking a person to the support of terrorists. Both of Indiana's senators, Richard Lugar and Dan Coats, voted in support of the Defense Re-Authorization Act that strips citizens of their constitutional right to due process. The lopsided 93-7 vote wasn't as bad in the House of Representatives where 283 members violated their oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution compared to the 136 who kept their oath by voting against it. Surprisingly, most of Indiana's congressional delegation joined the minority in opposing the bill, including:

• Rep. Dan Burton (R)
• Rep. Larry Buschon (R)
• Rep. Andre Carson (D)
• Rep. Mike Pence (R)
• Rep. Todd Rokita (R)
• Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R)

Hats off to these congressmen for keeping their oath. Just three Indiana congressmen joined the majority in violating their oath of office. They are:

• Rep. Joe Donnelly (D)
• Rep. Pete Visclosky (D)
• Rep. Todd Young (R)

Camp Atterbury in Young's congressional district is one of the likely locations where U.S. citizens will be unlawfully detained. Lots of money being spent down there for something.

President Barack Obama, naturally, plans to do what his New World Order masters have ordered him to do and sign it into law. Yep, he really is a sleeper agent for the CIA. A few liberals like Jonathan Turley have finally gotten Obama's number, while others like Sheila Kennedy who are devoting their time to figuring out a way to dismantle American's Second Amendment rights continue to drink the Kool Aid. Turley writes of Obama's betrayal:

There was a brief moment when civil libertarians were stunned to see President Barack Obama actually take a stand in favor of civil liberties after years to rolling back on basic rights of citizens and moving beyond the Bush Administration in building up the security state. Obama said that he would veto the defense bill that contained a horrific provision for the indefinite detention of American citizens. While many predicted it, Obama has now again betrayed the civil liberties community and lifted the threat of the veto. Americans will now be subject to indefinite detention without trial in federal courts in a measure supported by both Democrats and Republicans. It is a curious way to celebrate the 220th anniversary of the Bill of Rights . . .

The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is facially ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality. THe Administration and Democratic members are in full spin — using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial. At least Senator Lindsey Graham was honest when he said on the Senate floor that “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

I am not sure which is worse: the loss of core civil liberties or the almost mocking post hoc rationalization for abandoning principle. The Congress and the President have now completed a law that would have horrified the Framers. Indefinite detention of citizens is something that the Framers were intimately familiar with and expressly sought to bar in the Bill of Rights. While the Framers would have likely expected citizens in the streets defending their freedoms, this measure was greeted with a shrug and a yawn by most citizens and reporters. Instead, we are captivated by whether a $10,000 bet by Romney was real or pretend in the last debate.

As Turley notes, there is only one presidential candidate today who stands on the side of true civil libertarians and that man is Ron Paul.

This leave Ron Paul as the only candidate in the presidential campaign fighting the bill and generally advocating civil liberties as a rallying point for his campaign. Paul offered another strong argument against the Patriot Act and other expansions of police powers in his last debate. He also noted that the Patriot Act provisions were long advocated before 9-11, which was used as an opportunity to expand police powers. As discussed in a prior column, Obama has destroyed the civil liberties movement in the United States and has convinced many liberals to fight for an Administration that blocked torture prosecutions, expanded warrantless surveillance, continued military tribunals, killed Americans on the sole authority of the President, and other core violations of civil liberties.

And Rush Limbaugh thinks Ron Paul is the only Republican presidential candidate who can't beat Obama. Huh!