By Toby Amodeo

The National Defense Authorization Act (s1867), aka the “indefinite detainment” bill, has recently received much undue criticism. The act allows for the detention of suspected terrorists on American soil for an indefinite period of time. It has come under heavy fire from liberal interest groups and leaders nationwide for its supposed violation of the Bill of Rights.

Yet these members of society are missing a key principle. America still has a Bill of Rights.

Suspected terrorists are under suspicion for a reason. Whether they have been observed participating in illegal activities or a tip has been received citing their name, there must be a reason. Why should they be allowed to walk free? The American people deserve a sense of security that would be lost if suspected terrorists were allowed to walk free. The act is not saying that anyone may be imprisoned for anything, like Greg Hunter’s watchdog.com would like you to believe. His site claims that the bill means “You are guilty until proven innocent.”

However, let us look at terrorism for a moment. This is one of those rare moments when the safety of the public must outweigh the rights of the individual. Of course this law is motivated by 9/11 fears, but why shouldn’t it be? 2,997 people died on that September day (not including the hijackers of the airliners). While there is no conclusive evidence proving that the events of 9/11 could have been altered with this act in place, it is worth recognizing the fact that it may prevent many more deaths in the future. The American public must be kept safe. It is the duty of our government to guarantee the rights of the people. The Constitution does not specify which or how many people, but based on the philosophies of John Locke, a key influence on the Framers of the Constitution, we can assume it tends to mean the majority of the people. The people have consented to be governed under the American system, and as a reward for this consent, the government should protect them. A suspected terrorist accused of plotting to kill Americans clearly opposes the American government. This opposition signifies a lack of consent to be governed under the American Constitution; ergo, the terrorist should not receive the full rights granted to an American citizen. A suspected terrorist must still be given some rights, however, such as a fair trial and knowledge of the charges against him or her.

The National Defense Authorization Act gives military personnel the right to detain suspected terrorists, not to violate their rights. If rights of prisoners are violated by military personnel, it should not be blamed on the law. The bill merely sets a standard on public safety. It brings the never ending question from the post 9/11 world back on to the table. Which do we prefer: unlimited civil liberties and not knowing about suspected terrorists or the loss of some liberty for suspects and greater security for all?