Can the U.S. Army Come After You?

The National Defense Authorization Act, currently being debated in the U.S. Senate, is very far-reaching. Some say that it would authorize the mobilization of our armed forces to arrest and detain pretty well anybody...say, anybody who's "racist" (why not add "sexist"?) enough to observe that our President is operating in either ignorance or defiance of our Constitution, and needs to be reined in, if not impeached. (Some of my e-friends are starting to call for impeachment. I'd actually prefer, if only for the record, to see President Obama finish his term.)

Senator McCain is supporting the N.D.A.A., and unfortunately some of my real-world friends and relatives would probably agree with him--at first blink. If we can locate an Al-Qaeda goon, why not go after him with everything we've got. Let the troops clobber him on our behalf. And I will admit that this line of thinking makes sense--at first blink.

Then you start to think about it in its historical context, or at least I do, and I'm asking you to do. I'm asking you to remember the Waco disaster of 1993, in which an obnoxious but non-criminal U.S. citizen was presumed guilty of the criminal charges he himself had filed against other people years earlier. If you've not already read David Kopel's No More Wacos, read it now; it discusses more than two dozen situations in which employees of our federal government abused their power to attack people against whom they harbored some sort of grudge or prejudice. Do we really want to expand the power of federal agents to attack anyone without due process of law?

After the previous post bashed Ann Coulter's tactless, clumsy bash at Senator McCain, I want to say, in this one, that I think I understand what had reduced her to such incoherent rage. Senator McCain, who is an honorable man, appears to think that everybody in our government is as honorable as he...that the wording of the N.D.A.A. clearly specifies that only known Al-Qaeda goons will ever be targeted by the proposed expansion of government powers the N.D.A.A. would make. Well, I'm not here to spew insults at those of the older generation who have done most to earn my respect, so let me put it this way. "A person who...substantially supported...forces...engaged in hostilities" does not mean "a person who has funded or participated in a bombing"; it could be interpreted as referring to any dissenter. Any Senator who failed to notice that possible interpretation was clearly distracted while reading the bill, and should call for a week of further consideration before voting.

Readers, kindly take advantage of the free opportunity to read the controversial section of the N.D.A.A. at http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/the-rushed-detainee-provisions-of-ndaa. See it for yourselves, then call your elected officials.