It seems likely that without the pressure of reelection, President Obama should be able to push through bolder legislation during his second term, as opposed to handing us watered-down bills similar to those we have seen in the last four years. Regarding civil liberties, the President has protected and even expanded many of those rights that have received a lot of attention, such as marriage equality and abortion. But considering the actions he took in his last term, the future does not look bright for issues often overlooked by the media, including indefinite detention, internet censorship, and the rise of government surveillance.
This New Year’s Eve, Obama once again signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which is a fiscal bill that determines the defense budget each year. Beginning in 2012, a very controversial section was added that placed domestic terror investigations in the hands of the military. This allows for the trial-free indefinite detainment of anyone, even American citizens and those captured on American soil, so long as the government labels them terrorists or they commit a “belligerent act” against the United States. Essentially, the government can now bypass the entire judicial system to carry out its prolonged, costly, and futile war on terror. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a trial, so if this law is not unconstitutional then we might as well scrap the whole Constitution.
Though he signed the bill, Obama expressed concern about its implications.
“The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it,” the President said in a statement. “I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”
Passively accepting such measures is as good as agreeing with them. The fact that Obama signed the bill renders his public condemnations useless—even if this administration doesn’t use these powers, they could likely be abused in the future. After all, the bill was passed unanimously by Congress, and its only opposition came from a few civil libertarians, including Rand Paul.
The NDAA is just the most recent installment of an ever-broadening series of measures limiting our rights in the name of fighting terrorism. These measures include federal collection of huge amounts of data gathered from phone calls and internet activity of innocent Americans; provisions for as many as 30,000 drones by 2020, all equipped to monitor U.S. citizens; and an increasingly strong push for internet censorship. In fact, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, which would hand off even more online privacy rights, is now making its way through Congress for the second time. These days, bills that disregard the rights of individuals and infringe on civil liberties are often sped through Congress, while those that protect them are often all but impossible to pass.
Our most basic rights, such as privacy and free speech, are so taken for granted that we do not even realize when they are being threatened. Words like “freedom” and “liberty” have been transformed into mere soundbites and selling points as opposed to fundamental ideals. This issue should not be fought along party lines; we need politicians who genuinely care about mundane yet vital liberties, such as the right to a fair trial or being innocent until proven guilty. There is more to fear from an increasingly Orwellian government than there is from terrorism or whatever threat a free and open Internet might pose.