Yesterday, Senator McCaskill voted to allow the US military to indefinitely detain Americans on American soil without giving them a right to trial by jury. If the military says you are a terrorist, you don’t even need to be charged – you can be locked away for the rest of your life, and Claire McCaskill is okay with that.
“But I’m not a terrorist,” you say. Well, maybe you are and maybe you’re not. And maybe you are and don’t even know it yet.
Terrorism is a slippery concept. It turns out that I could be labelled as a supporter of a terrorist organization because of some raffle tickets I bought in 1979. If one of your church leaders starts talking about confronting the military for its stockpiling of nuclear weapons, or taking action against abortion providers, or questioning the behavior of the Fed, or swamping the website of a Senator, you, too, could be a terrorist.
And remember, you don’t actually even need to be a terrorist to get locked up for life under McCaskill’s plan. You merely need to have someone in the military SAY you are a terrorist. You don’t get to prove your innocence in a court of law.
Yes, folks, it really has come to this, and Claire McCaskill has voted in favor of the military being able to lock up whomever it chooses without even charging them. (Roy Blunt did, too, but nobody expected better from him, did they? After all, he’s one of those small-government types who believes the government should be able to jail anyone it chooses.)
While it’s hard to guess why Claire McCaskill voted the way she did, it’s clear that she did it out of cowardice. Perhaps she really, truly believes that the world is suddenly too dangerous to exist without allowing the military to arrest whomever it wants. Perhaps she lacks the resolve – the guts – to exist in a free society.
Or, more likely, she fears she will lose her election if anyone makes even the most bogus claim that she is soft on terrorism. Perhaps she fears that she will face a commercial some day in the future that says “Claire McCaskill voted against locking up terrorists.” It’s probably a legitimate fear – republican zealots will say and do anything to win an election.
But that’s not an excuse. Claire McCaskill has voted to give the military rights the military should not have. Rights that we associate with dictatorships and monarchies. Whether she did it out of fear of terrorists or out of fear of Jeff Roe, she should have had the courage to stand up for the American public.
Could be she just thinks it’s the right thing to do; it’s not like Claire has ever shown any signs of being a dreaded “liberal,” nor that she’s any more concerned about civil rights for any but the elite, up to now.
It’s hard for me to imagine she is that wrong-headed, but I suppose it’s theoretically possible that she’s just as misguided as Roy Blunt.
Does CCP endorse McCaskill in her reelection campaign?
I honestly don’t recall whether they have technically endorsed for the next race yet, but they certainly will. At the annual meeting last night, her reelection was announced as one of the top priorities.
I was stunned she voted for this. I mean, I know it’s an election year and all but still, I thought she would both see this for what it is AND know that she had to vote against it. I blogged about it, as you did, and wrote her on her FB page. This bill is such an offense to any aware American, it’s difficult to say how really awful it is.
Mo, it’s not apparent to me that any rightish/conservative politician–which, to me, includes Claire–and not that many centrist types (and I’ve now covered the spectrum of American politics, at least at the national level) have the least concern for the beliefs of “aware Americans.” And why should they–there don’t seem to be enough of them to worry about.
Quick question, and I am not trying to be argumentative. Does the actual bill make it legal to hold American citizens as terrorists without charges or does it just allow holding of non-citizens apprehended on American soil to be held as terrorists without charges? I have heard both things said and I am not inclined to trust HuffPo as a legitimate source. But I have yet to find a link with the language of the actual bill.
Fair question, Craig, and I share with you a deep suspicion about wild stories like this one. But I’ve seen reports in the NYT, a pretty good analysis on Slate, and several other references.
OK, according to what I have read, and it is completely convoluted, this bill has some double speak in it that exempts American citizens but another provision, which the Obama administration insisted upon, that makes it apply to American citizens. I won’t pretend to know how that works. Dan, if that is true, do you put Obama in the same category as Claire? Now, i will say this, I am disgusted with the comments being attributed to McCain and Lindsey Graham, who I normally support. And I will admit that no GOP candidate (other than Ron Paul) would do anything different.
Are you going to her holiday fundraiser?
Craig – everything I have read says that it applies to Americans – in effect, it makes the entire country a battlefield. And, yes, I would happily criticize Obama for backing down on his commitment to veto the provision. Great presidents make bad decisions sometimes. This is one of those times.
Anonymous – Why would a middle class democrat give some of his money to one of the wealthiest people in Congress? I’ll answer my question – only if they want something. Anybody who shows up at that fundraiser either is so tremendously wealthy that they think Air Claire is a pauper, or they want an appointment, or access, or a favor. I won’t be there.
First, well said Dan.
Second, I like to get my information from multiple sources. I especially like to see something for myself and make up my own mind. This bill is written in such an obtuse way that I am not sure how to decifer it. But what concerns me is that both con and lib media are saying the same thing, that it includes citizens. I believe this is one instance where tne ACLU and th Heritage Foundation should team up.
A legal question. Can this be brought in front of the SCOTUS quickly, or does someones 4th Ammendnent rights have to be violated first?
Merry Christmas!
The Kanders were there last night.
I would be disappointed if they weren’t. Senator McCaskill can be a valuable ally for Jason. Fortunately, Jason has better democratic values and a great deal more integrity than McCaskill. He will be a great Secretary of State.
Not a very high bar, my friend.
Obama signed it. So what? He has already caved in to the Banks and Corporations.
He is bought and paid for.
Like ALL of them who reach that level.