A New Attack on the Constitution On Wednesday, a federal judge struck down a law allowing the indefinite detention of anyone suspected of terrorism on American soil as a violation of free speech and due process. Two days later, the House made it clear it considered those to be petty concerns, voting to keep the repellent practice of indefinite detention on the books. On a 238-to-182 vote, it rejected a proposal for something so basic that it is hard to believe there was an argument about it: a formal charge and trial for anyone arrested in the United States. You might have thought that was guaranteed in the Constitution, but that right was stripped away in last year's military policy bill, signed by President Obama, which made an exception for terror suspects. By giving the military the power to deal with domestic terrorists, the bill essentially allowed presidents to brand anyone a terrorist and lock them up for life without a trial. "That is an extraordinary amount of power to give the executive branch over individual freedom and liberty," said Adam Smith, a Democrat of Washington, who proposed amending this year's defense bill to end the exception. I don't think it is necessary to keep us safe. He was joined by Justin Amash, a Republican of Michigan, and several libertarians who feared government abuse. But they couldn't persuade the larger Republican majority, along with 19 Democrats. Never mind that hundreds of terrorists have been locked up by civilian courts. Supporters of detention said they were horrified that a police officer might read a terrorist a Miranda warning. "I think the vast majority of people in this body and around the country do not think telling them they have the right to remain silent as the first thing they hear is a wise thing," said Mac Thornberry, a Republican of Texas. A federal judge, at least, has recognized that basic rights cannot be arbitrarily removed from an entire class of people so lawmakers can look tough. In her opinion earlier this week, Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern District of New York blocked the government from enforcing the detention provision because it violated the First and Fifth Amendments. Noting that the law also allows detention for those who support terrorists, she said the language was so vague that it could allow journalists writing about terrorists to be locked up. That has a "chilling impact on First Amendment rights," she wrote. The overall defense bill was approved by the House, and President Obama has threatened to veto it - not because it fails to prohibit detention, but because it violates an agreement on the military budget and tries to prohibit same-sex marriages on military property, among other flaws. The Senate has an opportunity to fix this bill to restore the due-process rights found in the Constitution.