Montanans have the right idea!

As readers are doubtless aware, Congress and the Senate passed the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act last month. It included highly controversial and prima facie unconstitutional provisions. As retired US Marine Corps generals Charles Krulak and Joseph Hoar pointed out last month in a New York Times op-ed piece:

One provision would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past.

. . .

A second provision would mandate military custody for most terrorism suspects. It would force on the military responsibilities it hasn’t sought. This would violate not only the spirit of the post-Reconstruction act limiting the use of the armed forces for domestic law enforcement but also our trust with service members, who enlist believing that they will never be asked to turn their weapons on fellow Americans. It would sideline the work of the F.B.I. and local law enforcement agencies in domestic counterterrorism. ... Mandatory military custody would reduce, if not eliminate, the role of federal courts in terrorism cases. Since 9/11, the shaky, untested military commissions have convicted only six people on terror-related charges, compared with more than 400 in the civilian courts.

. . .

Having served various administrations, we know that politicians of both parties love this country and want to keep it safe. But right now some in Congress are all too willing to undermine our ideals in the name of fighting terrorism. They should remember that American ideals are assets, not liabilities.

There's more at the link. Bold print is my emphasis. The entire article is highly recommended reading.

It seems some citizens of Montana agree with Generals Krulak and Hoar, and are fighting back. They're mounting a recall drive to unseat their politicians who voted for the 2012 NDAA. Salem-News.com reports:

Moving quickly on Christmas Day after the US Senate voted 86 - 14 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA) which allows for the indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial, Montanans have announced the launch of recall campaigns against Senators Max Baucus and Jonathan Tester, who voted for the bill.

. . .

Montana law requires grounds for recall to be stated which show conformity to the allowed grounds for recall. The draft language of the Montana petitions, "reason for recall" reads:

"The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees all U.S citizens:

'a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed...'

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA 2011) permanently abolishes the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, 'for the duration of hostilities' in the War on Terror, which was defined by President George W. Bush as 'a task which does not end' to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.

Those who voted Aye on December 15th, 2011, Bill of Rights Day, for NDAA 2011 have attempted to grant powers which cannot be granted, which violate both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

The Montana Recall Act stipulates that officials including US senators can only be recalled for physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of a felony offense. We the undersigned call for a recall election to be held for Senator Max S. Baucus [and Senator Jonathan Tester] and charge that he has violated his oath of office, to protect and defend the United States Constitution."

Again, more at the link. It's worth reading the report in full.

Go Montana! - and may other states with laws that permit such recall petitions follow your example! If we can't trust our Representatives and Senators to obey the Constitution (in terms of which they are elected and serve in the first place), and pass laws that are in accordance with its provisions, why the hell can't we get rid of all of them?

Peter