Ron Paul Introduces Bill to Repeal NDAA's Indefinite Detention
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10608-ron-paul-introduc...
Written by Raven Clabough
Friday, 20 January 2012 11:52

Texas Congressman and GOP presidential contender Ron Paul is
continuing his battle for liberty even as he is focused on his fight
for the White House. This week, he introduced legislation to overturn
the dangerous provisions found within the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA).

Rep. Paul spoke on the House floor, specifically against Section 1021
of the NDAA, which includes language which permits the government to
detain anyone who “substantially supported al Qaeda, the Taliban, or
associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United
States.” Paul fears — as do a number of other opponents to the law —
that the language can be used against U.S. citizens as well.

Sections 1021 and 1022 in the new bill were originally sections 1031
and 1032 in the old version of the bill.

As noted by LewRockwell.com, however, the main difference between the
new and old versions of the NDAA is the insertion of one paragraph
between the “Implementation Procedures” and “Effective Date,” which is
found in the new version. That paragraph reads:

(d) AUTHORITIES. — Nothing in this section shall be construed to
affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security
authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other
domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person,
regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.

Still, most contend that the new language is scarcely enough to ensure
that the rights of U.S. citizens guaranteed by the Constitution are
secure.

"The bill is an historic threat to American citizens and others
because it expands and makes permanent the authority of the president
to order the military to imprison without charge or trial American
citizens," senior legislative counsel Christopher Anders said in a
statement.

What is particularly frightening is that if citizenship of an
individual does in fact prove to be a deterrent in the case of
indefinite detention under the NDAA, Senator Joe Lieberman has already
introduced legislation which will help the federal government
circumvent that issue: the Enemy Expatriation Act, which seeks to
remove U.S. citizenship from those who “support hostilities against
the United States.”

In fewer than 100 words, the text of Paul’s legislation, HR 3785,
would overturn section 1021 of the NDAA:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, Section 1. Repeal of Section
1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012.

The bill, introduced on January 18, has since been referred to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs, in addition to the Committee on Armed
Services.

In introducing his legislation on the House floor, Paul declared,

Section 1021 essentially codifies into law the very dubious claim of
presidential authority under 2001 authorization for the use of
military force to indefinitely detain American citizens without access
to legal representation or due process of law. Section 1021 provides
for the possibility of the U.S. military acting as a kind of police
force on U.S. soil apprehending terror suspects, including Americans,
and whisking them off to an undisclosed location indefinitely, no
right to attorney, no right to trial, no day in court. This is
precisely the kind of egregious distortion of justice that Americans
have always ridiculed in so many dictatorships overseas.

Paul went on to compare the infringement upon American liberties found
in the NDAA to the gulag system imposed by the Soviet Union.

Addressing what supporters claim about the NDAA, Paul continued:

Some have argued that nothing in Section 1021 explicitly mandates
holding Americans without trial, but it employs vague language,
radically expanding the detention authority to include anyone who has
substantially supported certain terrorist groups or associated forces.
No one has defined what those terms mean. What is an associated force?

But as noted by Paul, members of Congress are all too willing to
infringe upon constitutional rights under the guise of security, and
to use fear mongering to coerce Americans into willingly allowing
their rights to be infringed upon. He even referred to a statement by
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) regarding the indefinite detention of
American citizens. Paul observed,

Sadly, too many of my colleagues are too willing to undermine our
Constitution to support such outrageous legislation. One senator even
said about American citizens being picked up under this section of the
NDAA, "When they say I want a lawyer, you tell them, shut up. You
don't get a lawyer." Is this acceptable in someone who has taken an
oath to uphold the Constitution?

It should come as no surprise that Rep. Paul would be the one to
introduce such legislation. Following the bill’s passage, he called it
a “slip into tyranny,” one which will bring about “our descent into
totalitarianism.”

Dr. Paul is the only Republican contender for the GOP nomination who
has openly voiced his opposition to the NDAA. When former
Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney said during last week's debate in
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina that he too would have authorized such
legislation as the President, Paul went over his time limit to stress
the importance of examining some of the more dangerous provisions
found in the NDAA.

Paul’s legislation is just one of many assaults against the
unconstitutional new law. Last Friday, Pulitzer prize-winning
journalist Chris Hedges sued the Obama administration over the act,
warning that the provisions in the legislation will lead to the growth
of fascism in the United States. He called it a “catastrophic blow to
civil liberties.”

Likewise, the state of Montana has launched an effort to recall their
state's Senators who voted in favor of the National Defense
Authorization Act.

The state of Rhode Island, as well as El Paso County in Colorado, have
both drafted resolutions to nullify the NDAA, a step which other
states are soon expected to follow as well.

Civil libertarian Glenn Greenwald well summarized the concerns of
NDAA’s critics in his article entitled, “Three Myths about the
Detention Bill:”

In sum, there is simply no question that this bill codifies indefinite
detention without trial (Myth 1). There is no question that it
significantly expands the statutory definitions of the War on Terror
and those who can be targeted as part of it (Myth 2). The issue of
application to U.S. citizens (Myth 3) is purposely muddled — that’s
why Feinstein’s amendments were rejected — and there is consequently
no doubt this bill can and will be used by the U.S. Government (under
this President or a future one) to bolster its argument that it is
empowered to indefinitely detain even U.S. citizens without a trial.

According to a poll put up by OpenCongress, a mere two percent of the
American people actually approve of the NDAA. And Congress' approval
rating remains at record lows. A Washington Post/ABC News poll
conducted Jan. 12-15 put its approval rating at 13 percent. Approval
of Ron Paul's legislation might help salvage some floundering
political