Senator Marco Rubio Defends NDAA
Marco Rubio Withdraws Support of PIPA
U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) issued a letter where he attempts to explain why he supported the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 after the controversial act came under attack by his Libertarian, Democratic and Republican constituents.
Senator Rubio's letter follows in its entirety:
Several people have asked about
my votes on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2012. In particular, some people are wrongly suggesting that this
legislation will allow the military to capture and indefinitely detain
any American citizen, and that the US Armed Forces would be able to
perform law enforcement functions on American soil because of the
authority conferred under Sections 1031 and 1032 of the Act. While I
do have other serious concerns with this legislation, those particular
assertions could not be further from the truth. I want to take this
time to explain what the law actually does, what my position is on
these issues, and why I joined with Senators Demint, Coburn and Lee to
vote for those specific sections, but against cloture on the final
bill.
Section
1031 of this act merely affirms the authority that the president
already has to detain certain people pursuant to the current
Authorization for Use of Military Force; in fact, this same section of
the bill specifically states that nothing stated in Section 1031 is
intended to expand the president’s power. In addition, this section
sets specific limits on who can be detained under this act to only those
people who planned or helped carry out the 9/11 attacks on the United
States or people who are a member of, or substantially support,
Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or their respective affiliates. There is no
language that could possibly be construed as repealing the Posse
Comitatus Act and allowing the US military to supplant your local police
department in carrying out typical law enforcement activities.
In
particular, some folks are concerned about the language in Section
1031 that says that this includes “any person committing a belligerent
act or directly supported such hostilities of such enemy forces.” This
language clearly and unequivocally refers back to Al-Qaeda, the
Taliban, or its affiliates. Thus, not only would any person in
question need to be involved with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or its
surrogates, but that person must also engage in a deliberate and
substantial act that directly supports their efforts against us in the
war on terror in order to be detained under this provision. There is
nothing in this bill that could be construed in any way that would
allow any branch of the military to detain a law-abiding American
citizen if you go to the local gun store or grocery store. What this
section of the bill does is help provide for our national security by
giving clarity to the military in regard to its authority to detain
people who have committed substantially harmful acts against the United
States. This is extremely important given that there are Al-Qaeda
cells currently operating within our borders. I would not leave the
risk of a terrorist attack that could claim the life of a member of my
family up to chance, and I will not leave that risk for your family
either.
Section
1032 of this bill concerns a smaller group of people who Congress
feels are required to be detained by the US military because people who
fit within this criteria are a more serious threat to our national
security. Any person detained under Section 1032 must be a member of,
or part of, Al-Qaeda or its associates AND they must have participated
in the planning or execution of an attack against the US or our
coalition partners. Simply put, the application of this detention
requirement is limited to Al-Qaeda members that have tried to attack the
US or its allies. However, this detention requirement is clearly
limited by a clause that states that the requirement to detain does not
extend to US citizens or lawful permanent residents.
Together,
these two sections do the following: they affirm the authority of the
executive branch to act within our national interest and they provide
the federal government with the tools that are needed to maintain our
national security. This bill does NOT overturn the Posse Comitatus
Act; the military will not be patrolling the streets. This bill does
not take away your rights as a citizen or lawful permanent resident;
the authority under this act does not take away one’s habeas rights.
These sections do NOT take away an individual’s rights to equal
protection under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, nor do they
take away one’s due process rights afforded under the 5th or 14th. If
this bill did such a thing, I would strongly oppose it.
I
want to thank everyone for reaching out to the office to voice your
concerns on this bill. I want to assure you that I always have, and
always will, listen to your concerns and address them in a timely
fashion. I know this bill is not perfect; in fact, I proposed 2
Amendments to prevent the President from transferring foreign terrorists
to the US to be prosecuted in the federal court system, and I joined
with Senators DeMint, Coburn, and Lee to vote against cloture. However,
in regard to the assertions that this bill allows the US military to
supplant our local police departments or that it allows the federal
government to detain otherwise law abiding citizens for simply carrying
on in their daily lives, those assertions are entirely unfounded.
As always, if you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me.
SIMILAR STORIES:
Newt Gingrich Endorsed By New Hampshire Union Leader
Romney Defends Bank Bailouts
SIMILAR STORIES:
President Obama Denies Appeasement Campaign Rhetoric
Herman Cain Suspends 2012 Presidential Campaign
Ron Paul Wins Tea Party Straw Poll In IowaNewt Gingrich Endorsed By New Hampshire Union Leader
Romney Defends Bank Bailouts