I am of two minds about the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011, a bill drafted in response to the detention provisions of the recently-enacted National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). While I support efforts to restrict the use of detention without charge, I do not believe that only certain groups—namely, citizens and lawful permanent residents—should be singled out for protection.
The draft law, introduced in the Senate on December 15 and in the House the following day, says that a congressional authorization for the use of military force does not allow the indefinite detention of citizens or lawful permanent residents arrested in the US, unless Congress explicitly provides for such detention. In other words, it would establish a clear statement rule that would offer citizens and resident non-citizens in the US default protection against detention without charge.
Such a rule, had it existed in 2002, would have barred the Bush administration from holding US citizen Jose Padilla for three-and-a-half years without charge, an unnecessary and abusive measure. But it would do nothing to solve the country’s most urgent and glaring detention problem: the indefinite detention of non-resident aliens.
To date, aside from two instances (Padilla and Louisiana-born Yaser Hamdi), it is non-citizens, rather than citizens, who have borne the brunt of the US government’s post-9/11 propensity to hold suspected terrorists for years without charge or trial. Hundreds of non-citizens have been detained at Guantanamo over the past decade, of whom 171 remain, all but five without formal charge.
Does He Not Bleed?
Most Americans would, I think, be appalled if protection against indefinite detention were allocated along explicit racial or ethnic lines. A law saying that African-Americans could be held without charge, but white people could not, would be condemned as unconstitutional by the man on the street. Yet such distinctions, when they trace the bounds of citizenship, are somehow viewed as natural.
“Prick a Yemeni or Somali; does he not bleed?” asked ACLU deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer recently, trying to redirect public concern over the NDAA’s controversial detention provisions toward detainees at Guantanamo. Jaffer, a Canadian, may understand better than most that non-citizens are no less human than Americans. Many US citizens, it seems, assume that standards of fairness can and should be malleable, varying according to one’s passport.
What would be a raw injustice, if endured by an American, is apparently less of an outrage if a foreigner is the injured party.
Citizenship Is “Irrelevant”
This underlying sense that distinctions based on citizenship are natural and legitimate is not universally held. The UK’s highest court, faced with a British indefinite-detention law in 2004, struck the law down precisely because it discriminated on the grounds of citizenship. Passed in the wake of the September 11 attacks, the law applied only to foreign nationals suspected of terrorism, not to UK citizens.
The court’s reasoning in that case is instructive. “If the threat presented to the security of the United Kingdom by UK nationals suspected of being Al-Qaeda terrorists or their supporters could be addressed without infringing their right to personal liberty,” said one of the Law Lords hearing the case, “it is not shown why similar measures could not adequately address the threat presented by foreign nationals.”
“The nationality of the suspects,” another of the Law Lords explained, is “irrelevant” to the threat that they pose. And if the threat is the same, the suspects should be treated equally.
The equal treatment standard has strong normative appeal. Given their lack of political power, and their inability to attract the concern of the US public, non-citizens have few obvious means of defending their rights. For them, paradoxically, a terrible but even-handed law—one that potentially harms citizens and non-citizens alike—may be better than a law of narrower scope. The broader the law, the broader the potential constituency for its repeal.
The reform that makes real sense is not a limited revision of the NDAA to protect Americans, but a principled initiative that bans detention without charge. A bill introduced by Representative Ron Paul, which would repeal one of the NDAA’s key detention provisions, would be a step in that direction, but, with only three cosponsors, the bill has little chance of passing. (Ron Paul’s legislative record does not inspire confidence.)
Prospects for meaningful change are slim. In the meantime, unbeknownst to the US public, the relatives of detainees held at Guantanamo hold demonstrations outside of the US Embassy in Kuwait. There is abundant outrage and concern over the indefinite detention of people at Guantanamo, it just isn’t shared here.
Indefinite definite detention isn’t our only problem, not when media conceal FBI and police crimes. That story can only be found with a search for “New police weapon against homeless” and also “Historic coverup of FBI and police crimes currently taking place”. email@example.com
Part of the issue here that isn’t being addressed, is the proposed Enemy Expatriation Act which was introduced in both the House and the Senate in December. This legislation would allow the administration to strip an individual of their American citizenship upon the allegation that they are “associated” with terrorist groups.
If this legislation makes it into law, it won’t really matter if they have revised the NDAA detainee provisions so they do not apply to American citizens. They can simply revoke your citizenship and then utilize the NDAA to detain you in military custody, indefinitely, without charge or trial. Think about that.
In addition the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 is being repealed by end of Q1 this year. the entire country is becoming a true police state.
The Nationwide NDAA 2012 Congressional Protest is Feb. 3rd. Please spread the word!
I read that the president didn’t fully agree with this bill. I say to get everything you want before you sign something that affects the US.
detention without charge or a chance to defend yourself,is a crime against humanity itself!!! what if YOU get snatched up,and YOUR life as you know it,were taken.and you were never even told why?we are not dogs without a collar,to be cought,threw into a pound,because YOU dont know our owner,never understanding why,or what you have done wrong. the common human,is not a lawyer.but lives by the values he or she has been taught.what is our government teaching us?that all options are on the table?or war is good,if another makes you feel nervous.or if you dont fit in ,or agree with everything they say,you might just vanish.if you speak your mind,you’re a criminal.even though you’ve harmed nobody,and have no intentions to.or if you feel you must defend yourself,and lovedones.even against tyranny,you’re deemed a terrorist!!!this great nation is on a path of self destruction if we don’t start thinking more,and harder,about the choices we make,and the reprocussions they will surely bring.whether positive,or negative!!! THE VOICE OF ALL TRUE PATRIOTS / NOT THE PATRIOT ACTors
I agree that all indefinite detention is wrong and that it violates our constitution and the princibles that our nation was founded on.
Indefinite detention is probably the single-most intrusive act the gov’t can do.
While Dr. Paul has not been able to get many bills into law, it does not mean that his bills are not good ones. If enough people call, fax, write and visit their representatives, and if we hold demonstrations against this tyrannical legislation, this is one of his bills that could become law. I appreciate your coverage of this issue. Most Americans seem blissfully unaware of the ramifications, and you explain them in easy-to-understand language. Keep up the good work!