Waving goodbye to our Bill of Rights

Kharissa Forte

On New Year’s Eve, President Obama signed into law the closest demonstration of dictatorship and communism that America has seen. The National Defense Authorization Act for the 2012 fiscal year gives our country’s leader authorization to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely if they deem to be – in his definition – belligerent. Fellow citizens, this is in my opinion the first step towards religious persecution (most likely of Christians), one world order, and the end of our seemingly happy lives as we know it.

The irony of the law is that, in reality, it is simply a consequent product of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. Can’t recall this act? Look a little bit closer. The title itself is an acronym that is better known as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. On October 26, 2001, President George Bush signed this act into law in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11. This act did a lot of good concerning the protection of privacy of American citizens. For example, the power given to authorities to search private records of the people was reduced and the power to investigate financial dealings between foreigners was increased. The most important part of this act given its reason for being developed was that it also gave authorities the power to perpetually detain non-U.S. citizens who were suspected of terrorism related activities. Fast forward ten years and a new president later, and here we are living under an additional branch of the USA PATRIOT Act now known as the NDAA.

But, no need to worry; according to the The National Defense Authorization Act: Our Disappearing Rights and Liberties by Alton Lu in Huffington Post, Obama released a statement claiming that he “will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” He also stated, “I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation.” With that said, my question is why, then, even sign the act in the first place? I must say, another promise from Obama is like Pinocchio saying he’s finally going to tell the truth (sure hope I don’t get locked up for that one). Okay, I may be overreacting a bit. It’s just that in the big scheme of things, the major promises that urged most of us to vote him into office haven’t been fulfilled. Gas prices are still high. Troops are still in Iraq. Job availability is still on a steady decline. Perhaps I’m ignorant on some topics; I’m no political guru. It’s just that this kind of power seems deliberate with the true rationale for it becoming a law intentionally left undisclosed to us.

Does anyone have a clear understanding on why the NDAA was signed into a law? Because I surely am having the most difficult time finding a concise answer. I think we all have the Constitutional right to be given an honest answer. Then again, I recall in July of last year when Weekly World News reported Obama saying, “The document [the U.S. Constitution] is so out-dated, that it is now becoming a hindrance to governing the country.” So, perhaps we don’t have that right anymore. With all of his executive orders (basically when Congress’ vote is overridden by the President and he pretty much says, “what I say goes”) flying around, revamping the Constitution seems right up his alley.

As for if he’ll use his new power permissible by the NDAA or not, I suppose only time will tell. Until next week.

[email protected]