What the Boston Bomber Taught us About the Indefinite Detention of United States Citizens

I wish to write today on the topic of the indefinite detention of U.S. Citizens. This is a subject that has recently come to the forefront of national discussion with the tragic events of the Boston bombing. Upon the capture of the second suspect in the bombing two Republican United States Senators (John McCain and Lindsey Graham) began advocating for the indefinite detention of the suspect as an enemy combatant. They argue that under the provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, U.S. Citizens may be detained indefinitely as enemy combatants when it is deemed that they have taken up arms against this country. I wrote to my senators and representatives against this provision in the NDAA back when it was up for a vote last year. I was assured by the office of two senators that the indefinite detention provision could not and would not ever be used against an U.S. Citizen.

Now it is clear, that despite the choice of the current administration to proceed with the case through traditional criminal justice means, the indefinite detention of a U.S. Citizen arrested on U.S. soil for a crime committed on U.S. soil is a possibility. I am distressed. While I am thankful that the Obama administration has not decided to invoke the ability to indefinitely detain suspect number two without trial, I should not have to be thankful for this. The indefinite detention of a U.S. Citizen without trial should never be on the table unless the citizen in question was captured on a battlefield while engaged in hostilities against the United States. No matter how heinous their crimes, citizens of the United States are entitled to due process of law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and a right to a speedy and public trial under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Some have argued that the suspects in question should never have been allowed to become U.S. Citizens. This is a matter that will no doubt be debated for some weeks but has no effect on whether or not they actually are citizens. Some have even argued that because they became citizens only in the last couple of years (or possibly in bad faith) they should not enjoy the rights of United States Citizens. Were these arguments successful, this would make all immigrants to the United States second class citizens, their status as “true” citizens would be up for debate, as would their access to the fundamental protections of the U.S. Constitution. This is a dangerous line of reasoning and it is troubling to me that two U.S. Senators seem so eager to set this sort of precedent. Regardless of the immense amount of evidence against suspect number two, under the law he is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

I am thankful that the Obama administration has decided to pursue the prosecution of the second suspect (who has now been officially charged) through normal means. But what about next time? What about when we have a less scrupulous president that is less concerned with upholding the constitutional rights of citizens? The constitution is supposed to limit the government’s power so that when democracy inevitably fails, and we elect a potential tyrant, their ability to damage this country irreparably will be curtailed.

I would ask you to set aside your emotions. The anger and rage we all feel at the killing of three and maiming of hundreds, to think about the greater implications of such drastic actions. Think about the implication of even having the potential to deny American Citizens their fundamental rights under the “appropriate” circumstances. The danger is that if there are appropriate circumstances under which to deny American Citizens their fundamental rights, then in the end there is no true protection of those rights, and our free society is lost.