The Liberty Issue

On the last day of 2011, President Obama signed the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. The legislation extends executive authority to allow the President to arrest and detain US citizens on US soil. This was done by declaring the homeland as part of the battlefield in the war on terror and then establishing congressional approval of the President to exercise established authority to question those accused of being enemy combatants without allowing them to contact a lawyer. Declaring the homeland part of the battlefield made the accusation of being allied with al-Qaeda an act of war and not a crime. This means that habeas corpus dones not attach and you can be questioned indefinitely.

One would think that with all the discussion surrounding the desire of Republican candidates to be free from the tyranny of taxation and needless government regulation, you would think that more discussion would be devoted to opposing an act that actually established the President as ... well as a dictator, capable of acting on his own to violate long standing civil rights.

In the January 17 debate, Governor Romney was asked if he would have signed that legislation. He responsed that he indeed would have signed it. This statement was in line with previous statements made by Governor Romney and with a white paper he released on foreign policy. That white paper noted the need to focus on domestic radicalization, and the need to update the 2001 authorization to include new terrorist entities and new countries that harbor them.

Senator Sentarom was asked the same question at the debate. In a strained answer, Senator Santorum states that he would have signed the legislation. However, while acknowledging that the bill did indeed give the President the authority to arrest and detain US citizens indefinitely with merely an accusation, Senator Santorum reassured the crowd that if he were President, he would not use the authority in that manner, but would abide by long standing civil rights.

Speaker Gingrich was not asked the question, but previous debates have made his position clear. In debates that took place before the contents of the 2012 NDAA were widely being discussed, Congressman Gingrich stated emphatically that there was a difference between a crime and an act of war and that those in the US who were allied with al-Qaeda were committing acts of war. This was the basic effect of the NDAA, as it removed the act from being tried in civil courts to enacting the President's authority.

Congressman Paul's position on the matter are also well known. He spoke on the floor when the House returned from recess only a few days ago in opposition to the measure. He has also voted against the PATRIOT Act and its reauthorization, against the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and against the legislation that created the Department of Homeland Security.

With the candidate positions now fully known, is it time for a discussion on liberty? Can anyone among us still maintain that those who fought the British for freedom would not be equally appalled at the behavior of this Congress and administration? Yes, the nation is at war. Yes, some of those people may already be in the US. However, Congress and the President cannot be inept and absent at enforcing immigration law, and then use that ineptitude to enact legislation that removes the freedom of US citizens in response to the threat posed by those illegal immigrants. With the 15th debate going on tonight with just those four remaining candidates, let's hope that liberty is at least brought up for a discussion again.