On Thursday, the Senate approved a bill that would allow the government to indefinitely hold U.S. citizens suspected of being terrorists, threatening to radically alter the concept of due process. On Friday, a compromise amendment altered the language, allowing courts to decide, should the president, in the future, want to indefinitely hold a suspected terrorist.

An amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act may allow the government to indefinitely hold anyone suspected of supporting or being a member of the Taliban, al-Qaeda or supporting organization, including U.S. citizens. These individuals will not be tried by jury.

Supporters claim that the law is necessary to prevent terrorism. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) says, ‘Law enforcement is one tool, but in some cases, holding people who have decided to help al-Qaeda and turn on the rest of us and try to kill us so we can hold them long enough to interrogate them to find out what they’re up to makes sense.’

Supporters justify that this law will be used for anti-terrorism purposes. Labeling someone as a terrorist seems to not have a clear standard. Law enforcement may decide to use the law as tactic to strip an individual of his or her constitutional right to a due process.

It is extremely troubling that a large majority of senators have decided it acceptable to subvert the Constitution. Rights are granted to citizens regardless of the crime the accused is alleged to have committed. The purpose of trials is to determine if the individual did, in fact, commit the crime. All individuals are given Miranda warnings and rights because it is inappropriate to find someone guilty or deprive someone of rights because of a suspected, unproven crime.

Principles do not change because the situation is inconvenient or challenging. Those who voted in favor of the amendment demonstrate a lack of faith in the justice system, which should have no difficulty convicting actual terrorists.

Several members opposed the original amendment, including Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who was concerned with how the amendment may cause more personal freedoms to be lost. He said, ‘The discussion now to suspend certain rights to due process is especially worrisome given that we are engaged in a war that appears to have no end. Rights given up now cannot be expected to be returned. So, we do well to contemplate the diminishment of due process, knowing that the rights we lose now may never be restored.’

The bill also represents a reaction to the what-if situation of reacting to terrorism, commonly seen in presidential debates. In this scenario, candidates are presented with the typical situation of where a terrorist has a bomb and it will detonate imminently, killing hundreds of thousands of people. The candidate must decide whether to torture the individual and get the information or let the bomb explode.

Fortunately, this situation is fictional, though it is often treated as reality. Legislation should not justify its worth by reacting to these unrealistic what-if situations.

The amendment, as agreed upon, is not clear on whether U.S. citizens may be indefinitely held. Allowing the courts to decide is not necessary — the amendment simply should not have been added to the bill.

Harmen Rockler is a junior newspaper journalism and political science major. His column appears every Monday. He can be reached at horockle@syr.edu.

Published on December 4, 2011 at 12:00 pm