Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
For you it's been nearly a week now since the United States senate passed a defense budget which would allow the military to detain Americans.
On US soil.
The president has threatened to veto the bill that passes the house but what -- are the promises of a man who was already murdered an American overseas.
Joining me now is senator Mike Lee who stated that quote we will not allow American military personnel to arrest and indefinitely detain.
US citizens senator -- it's always a pleasure.
Welcome back to freedom watch.
Thank you just.
Disorderly tell me where you stand on this I know there were a number of votes.
And some of them -- procedural.
And some of them were substantive and it seemed that.
To those of us watching from a distance that at one point you were not upset by the McCain eleven proposal.
And yet you ultimately voted against it so.
Does the United States government through the military or any other agency.
Have the authority to arrest Americans -- -- lock them up without a trial without a judge without charges.
Claims that authority it should not have that authority and that's why I was original cosponsor of the Feinstein amendment that would have made that point clear.
And that's another reason why -- voted against the final bill when it came up for a final vote is because these provisions remained in there.
That appear to extend that authority that is the authority indefinitely to detain US citizens without trial and I'm strongly against that.
Ari are you as perturbed as I am.
About the entire concept of using the united states military for domestic law enforcement and of course we're not talking about directing traffic we're talking about sending troops into the streets are the people's homes to arrest them.
Without any judicial intervention or need to file charges whatsoever does this trouble you.
-- what troubles me immensely because among other things it violates the Fifth Amendment it violates the sixth amendment.
It has the potential to result in severe violations of the Fourth Amendment.
And it also violates the longstanding principle posse -- taught -- the idea that we don't.
Enforce our laws on civilians within the United States through our military forces.
And this was the whole reason why the American revolution took place or or a large part of it anyway and that's why I've been consistent on this front.
That the bill that now is on its way to the house sport or is -- the house.
If it is voted on by the House of Representatives and signed by the president.
Will this reprehensible.
Utterly troubling and profoundly unconstitutional.
Provision become the law of the land.
And the president can dispatch the military to arrest anyone perhaps you or be without evidence without a charge when I -- judge intervening.
Perhaps so yes.
Now with -- without this -- going into effect.
These are authorities now claimed by our government which is disturbing in and of itself.
But once you codified into law that takes the disturbing aspects of this bill to a whole new level and that's one of the reasons why had been so concerned about it.
We have to remember judge that it's not just about what the government's doing today.
It -- they're not today going out and just randomly arresting people on the streets.
But that doesn't mean that a few months or -- few years from now they might not extend their authority that much further that's why we need to put in place specific.
Structural -- -- the government doesn't and knows that it can't exercise this kind of authority resulting in indefinite detention of US citizens without trial.
It's perhaps a little unfair for me ask you to get into the head of your colleagues.
Senator -- that there were only seven of view.
Who voted against this 93.
Including some colleagues of -- has heretofore -- faithful to the constitution as Jim dement of South Carolina.
Voted in favor of this what's in their heads don't -- see the profound violation of the constitution.
Don't they see the profound opportunity for the abuse that you just characterized to be used by some president in the future.
Whose name they don't know and in whose hands they would propose no trust.
I unfortunately can't speak for them I know only what my concerns are -- have tried to express those -- my colleagues and will continue to do so.
-- remember the words of the Federalist papers that.
If men were angels think not have no need for government and if government could be run by angels then we would have no need of these up.
Pretty burdensome structural restraints on government power -- the fact is we're not angels and those who run government are not angels and that's why we have to restrain their power.
And giving US military the authority to arrest him indefinitely detain a US citizen without trial is a recipe -- For disaster is whether this is -- -- Isn't it equally as offensive to the constitution that the US military.
Arrests non US citizens and US soil because after all the Fifth Amendment protects persons it doesn't limit its protection to Americans.
It Dennis right judge that there are different standards that sometimes I think -- to apply when you're talking about.
Prisoner of War situation.
During World War II when we arrested Nazi soldiers.
We didn't suddenly subject them during the time that they remained as prisoners of war to the US court system we didn't allow them to avail themselves of that benefit.
So I think there is -- difference between citizens on the one hand and prisoners of war on the other hand.
But no matter where would you what -- might disagree as to a proper treatment of prisoners of war I think we ought to all be able to -- -- Americans.
That indefinite military detention without trial of American -- citizens is categorically unacceptable.
Senator Mike Lee defending the constitution.
Thanks for joining us.
Thank you General Electric --
Filter by section