After my recent column on “Ten Reasons The U.S. Is No Longer The Land Of The Free,” I ran a response to claims made by Senator Carl Levin (D., Mich.) who was the main sponsor of the legislation including the indefinite detention provisions. Levin has now run a letter to the editor in response to my column that I believe is highly misleading and leaves readers with a false impression of both the law and my column.
Here is letter by Sen. Levin this morning:
In his Jan. 15 Outlook commentary, “Ten reasons we’re no longer the land of the free,” Jonathan Turley mischaracterized a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 that reaffirms the authority of the military to detain individuals who join al-Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces, and who attack the United States.
Mr. Turley disputed the Obama administration, which said that, with regard to U.S. citizens who fall in that category, “this provision only codified existing law,” i.e., it does not add new law to that issue. But Mr. Turley omitted the language in the act itself, which expressly states that “nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”
Carl Levin, Washington
The writer, a Democrat from Michigan, is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
There are a number of problems with this objection. First, the column that was printed noted that “While Sen. Carl Levin insisted the bill followed existing law “whatever the law is,” the Senate specifically rejected an amendment that would exempt citizens and the Administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal court.”
Second, the language cited by Levin has been ridiculed by civil libertarians as meaningless rhetoric designed to give members political cover after various members denounced the legislation as allowing indefinite detention of citizens. Without repeating the prior analysis, Levin (who assures that the law will be followed “whatever it is”) personally noted that the Administration demanded that there be no exception for citizens from indefinite detention. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality.
The fact that the Senate put a clear exemption in the mandatory detention provision for citizens but opted not to simply include the same provision in the discretionary detention provision reinforces this meaning. Moreover, the same Senators who voted to deny any exemption proceeded to vote for this language — clearly indicating that it did not offer such protection for citizens.
Most importantly, Levin and others are seeking to deny the authority that the President just acknowledged in his signing statement. Obama stated “I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” He does not deny that he has such authority . . . only that he does not intend to use it.
The only thing more disturbing than the provision itself is the effort of members to avoid responsibility for the provision — arguing that the civil liberties community and a wide variety of experts (as well as dozens of members of Congress) simply did not read the bill. The power, he suggests, was not given to the President despite the President’s assurance that he will not use it.
Notably, the earlier version of the column did not quote Levin on this point. I added the language before it went to print because Levin donors sent me a fax sent out by his office advancing this argument. The entire premise of both the early version and published version is that the effort to protect citizens was defeated by the Senate.
As I mentioned earlier, I often agree with Levin. However, the letter continues an effort to suggest to readers that this question is expressly answered in the bill. The clear effort is to dismiss the view of civil libertarians and members as ill-informed and portray the concern over civil liberties as baseless. I am not sure what is worse: exposing citizens to indefinite detention or misleading citizens that they need not be concerned because the Congress has their back.
“I am not sure what is worse: exposing citizens to indefinite detention or misleading citizens that they need not be concerned because the Congress has their back.”
I would add to that list “that Sen.
LevinPinochet has forgotten that some Americans know how to read”.But then again, I get really angry when some Washington weasel votes to blatantly piss on our civil rights and then tries to tell us it is raining.
What Mr Levin clearly doesn’t grasp is how fundamentally wrong NDAA is.
Another loss of civil liberties and another loss of integrity for the US and it’s citizens perpetrated through a delusional “War on Terror” by neocons.
Mr Levin has “occupied” the office too long. These “lifers” need some term limits as it appears “too long at the trough” has consequences.
When they (the lifers) demonstrate that they can no longer distinguish between right & wrong it’s time for them to go.
Mark Twain: ‘Politicians are like diapers; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.’
“As I mentioned earlier, I often agree with Levin.” proves enough to me. You are just as guilty as Levin for supporting the impostor pretend government, the so called UNITED STATES THAT IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN UNLAWFUL BANKRUPT CORPORATION FUNCTIONING OUTSIDE EVEN ITS OWN LAWS FOR ITSELF that you both obviously work for. You on the media side trying to make people think you are actually doing something to help and change things, and him on the inside tightening the noose you both have around the peoples neck. ANATHEMA IMPOSTER
“You on the media side trying to make people think you are actually doing something to help and change things”
Educating people on the steady erosion of their Constitutional rights is doing something. The first step in fixing any problem is knowing of the problem’s existence. Many Americans simply don’t know their rights much less when their rights are being attacked.
Conflate much?
Sen. Levin has explained his Interpretation of the bill,but has failed to highlight the need for the bill,which could apply to him should he leave office. How far will they go to engage in perpetual war?
1) If one goes to Levin’s senate.gov page, he spells out the “common inaccurate statements about the legislation”:
http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/the-detainee-provisions-in-the-national-defense-authorization-act-for-fy-2012
– It gives presidents new authority to indefinitely hold U.S. citizens without charge or trial. False. The legislation does not change current law regarding U.S. citizens. In fact, the bill specifically states that its provisions do not “affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” While one provision establishes a presumption that foreign al Qaeda detainees will be held by the military, U.S. citizens are specifically exempted from this provision.
– It allows indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without access to civilian courts. False. The law does not affect the right of habeas corpus – the right to petition a court to challenge detention before a judge.
2) And then he goes on to say the following:
“Thanks for taking the time to learn more about this important issue. If you’re still curious about detention policy and the National Defense Authorization Act, you might read the work of two respected legal experts who have written extensively on these provisions. While they don’t always agree with the legislation, Benjamin Wittes and Robert Chesney have written a useful summary that counters what they call the “sheer, unadulterated nonsense zipping around the internet” about the detainee provisions. ”
3) He notes that Wittes and Chesney have put together a “useful summary”, but the summary seems to point to the ambiguity that Levin is disputing. (see my next comment)
Perhaps Senator Levin would like to eliminate the Wittes and Chesney link from his senate.gov page… If not, he’s talking out of both sides of his mouth, it would seem.
This is the Wittes and Chesney summary to which Levin hightlights:
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/
which links to the following:
The Problematic NDAA: On Clear Statements and Non-Battlefield Detention
by Steve Vladeck on December 13, 2011
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/the-problematic-ndaa-on-clear-statements-and-non-battlefield-detention/
Excerpt:
“One might also divine clear statement rules from some combination of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, although my own inclination is that the statutory arguments are on firmer footing. But either way, the relevant point is that, although neither the Second Circuit’s analysis in Padilla nor the Fourth Circuit panel’s analysis in al-Marri are still good law, there’s no law in the other direction either.
And that’s why the NDAA is, in my view, so dangerous on this issue; supporters of virtually every position can claim that the NDAA, by preserving the status quo, preserves their view. It might be far safer for Congress to specify what the statutes already suggest–i.e., that status quo or no status quo, it takes a clear legislative statement to hold individuals picked up in non-battlefield situations without criminal charges. But until and unless we settle the clear statement issue, this conversation is just going to keep going in circles, and anyone who thinks the NDAA resolves it one way or the other is selling something.”
So, to repeat…
Vladeck states: “But until and unless we settle the clear statement issue, this conversation is just going to keep going in circles, and anyone who thinks the NDAA resolves it one way or the other is selling something.”
I heard that this old fart is 80. If that is true then he was alive in 1933 when President von Hindenburg passed the Reichstag Fire Decree which was the dismantling of civil and criminal rights in Germany following the Reichstag fire. The Reichstag was the German Parliament building in Berlin and was burned by Hermann Goerring and the Nazis blamed it on the Communists.
This Levin guy has to First, Lose the glasses sliding off the fat nose; Second, be subjected to the provisions of the bill being posted on the doors of every school in his State. Third, be ridiculed daily as a fat, dumb, old fart who doesnt know how to read and needs to be tried for war crimes.
We need to draft an indictment of the war criminals.
http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/rmc2289/ I know someone in Chesney’s class this semester. He is quite the good looking young professor.
This is one American who is sick of the ambiguity and doublespeak.
Vladeck states: “But until and unless we settle the clear statement issue, this conversation is just going to keep going in circles, and anyone who thinks the NDAA resolves it one way or the other is selling something.”
Going Around in Circles
Billy Preston With Eric Clapton. 2001.
(Correction to previous comment: “This is the Wittes and Chesney summary which Levin highlights:”)
It is difficult to argue with the Morally Corrupt…
If you think about it….maybe this is why the Sct stated what it did in the GPS case…..Because they already have the ability to do it under other agency’s and laws…..Just saying….
The entire Senate, except those who voted against the provision, are on my excrement list, especially Levin.
They are weak when it comes to taking their oath to uphold the constitution seriously, but they are strong on letting fascism sleaze its ugly way into place.
Mike S got their number in his recent Authoritarians post.
Those senators are a pathetic, poor excuse for an American Senate.
The polls are of their own putrid making.
Thanks for the link, Swarthmore mom. Chesney has an interesting background… (and he’s “good looking”, too…
)
I called Sherrod Brown’s office and asked why he was voting for the NDAA. I asked how this fit into our Constitution and why he believed the imprisonment without trial of ANY person was justified either legally or morally. The staff member I spoke with said specifically that Brown had voted to get American citizens exempted from the bill but that amendment had not passed. I then asked the question again as to why he was voting for the NDAA? The staff member said he was only taking constituents opinions and couldn’t tell me why.
Clearly, Brown knew American citizens would be unlawfully detained and d voted for the bill anyway, even after it was stripped of this specific exemption. ( I have yet to receive the written answer to my questions posed above, that I was promised by the staff member.)
The amount of absolute BS blasted into the minds of our citizens is farcical. Congress and the president knew exactly what they were doing. What they did was heinous and they should all be kicked out of office for violating the Constitution.
I take heart that Levin is nervous enough to keep lying about what he did. That shows citizens can still have an effect on Congress. We should take that power and use it.
I think this rhetorical one-upsmanship is beneath both advocates. There are legitimate and reason-based differences of opinion about the import of the specified provisions of the NDAA which have been explored ad nauseum here and elsewhere. Levin seems over the top in asserting a willful attempt by JT to “mischaracterize” the provision and thus implicitly mislead his readers. He does so by pointing out our host’s supposed omission (in his opinion) of language purporting to provide that the law inhibiting unjust detention is unchanged. JT seems equally vulnerable to criticism for asserting that Levin is purposefully “misleading citizens” about the level of rightful concern based on Levin’s interpretation of the language in question which JT deems “meaningless.”
Three facts remain unchallenged: First, the Bill is law as of 12/31/2011.. Second, we will accomplish very little substantively by arguing about the benefits or possible dire consequences of the law absent a real case in controversy with a claim of actual harm due to some governmental entity’s interpretation of the language at issue. Third, the good faith and spirit of public service implicit in each man’s argument is beyond question based on the character of each man as we know it to be.
Either the law is a direct threat to the Constitutional protections against detention without due process or it isn’t. Castigating either man — directly or by innuendo –for his opinion and calling into question either’s good faith will resolve this issue not one iota. It will, in fact, politicize and polarize the debate away from the legal question it truly involves. That is the debating style of those seek to assassinate the character of the opponent. And haven’t we already had enough of that style of “debate”?
Ok, Gene. And just what give the current version of the Constitution its proof of claim and validity of law? When one finally wakes up to the brilliant hoax pulled on the minds of the people, one has to realize the current version of the Constitution has no rights intended for the free, only citizens or slaves of the presumed authority THEY assume they have. You will NEVER get THEM to produce Their proof of claim, as there is none.
mespo,
“Second, we will accomplish very little substantively by arguing about the benefits or possible dire consequences of the law absent a real case in controversy with a claim of actual harm due to some governmental entity’s interpretation of the language at issue.”
*****
If a person being detained has no right to legal counsel, how will a real case controversy be brought to light?
“However, the letter continues an effort to suggest to readers that this question is expressly answered in the bill. The clear effort is to dismiss the view of civil libertarians and members as ill-informed and portray the concern over civil liberties as baseless. I am not sure what is worse: exposing citizens to indefinite detention or misleading citizens that they need not be concerned because the Congress has their back.”
–Jonathan Turley
And this is why many of us keep coming back to this blog. Thank you, once again, Professor Turley, for your clear vision — for seeing and articulating what others can’t or won’t.
Second, we will accomplish very little substantively by arguing about the benefits or possible dire consequences of the law absent a real case in controversy with a claim of actual harm due to some governmental entity’s interpretation of the language at issue. -mespo
Who among us would like to be the test case — the real case? Who among us would like to make “a claim of actual harm?” Who among us will agree to actually be harmed, as harm is likely to ensue?
There was ample opportunity to rid the bill of ambiguity before it was signed into law.
anon nurse,
I usually agree with mespo or defer to the wisdom he expounds upon…. This case I clearly disagree with him…Just like with William Brennan, the former best Constitutional Sct Judge in my opinion.. I disagreed with some decisions of his as well….
People have certain biases…If I try and understand mespo position….he states that there are protections in the bill, but for the bad conduct of the actors in the first place…they would never be in headlights or in the purview of law enforcement…. some basic liberties need to be erased because we are fighting a battle with some folks and we do not know who they are…..
I agree with you that the finer points needed to be made before the bill was signed into law….
That is why I think that the present administration entering into the camera case erasure..Where the cops erased the phone….(I think it was that one)..will set bad precedent if they are successful. in defending the civil liberties in that one…in the next breath they are taking away the same civil liberties that they fought for in the other case…..which makes no logical sense to me….If they take a hit….the arguments are still there against them…..
It reminds me of the cops selling the dope….and giving people money to by the dope, and then turning around and arresting the one selling it for distribution and busting the other one for possession….Were they entrapped? Not according to the latest court ruling out of the 6th Circuit….
Mespo, at the risk of once again triggering your condescension, : ) , and at the further risk of characterizing your own efforts as rhetorical, I think you have shifted ground from your previous critique of this issue. To wit, in the Levin I thread, you pretty much came down on the side of agreeing with Levin’s explanations and interpretations, especially because he was “in the room”, and against Turley’s reading, interpretations and concerns. Reading between the lines of your position stated there, it seems that concern for security trumped a reading which would favor preservation of the civil liberties in question.
Now you are saying it will take an actual case to render interpretation. This is almost a tautology, and seems to relieve you of the previous endorsement of Levin’s position.
Further you reduce the real and substantive debate to one that highlights personal accusation and character assassination which in my view further demeans the importance of the issues, though I expect you will say such observation actual reinforces the importance. We can agree to disagree on that one.
Maybe, as we have noted before , “parsing is what we do”. I find Turley’s exposing the meaningless and internally inconsistent language of the law (possibly intentional language and explanation to cover some butts) convincing. You did not, although you may be revising your position; I can’t tell. And while I’m sure both Turley and Levin are honorable men, one is a politician who regardless reputation as a “liberal”, is as susceptible to opting for a little less liberty for the chimera of a little more security in these post-9/11 years. There isn’t a very effective “terrorist lobby” to complain, nor do those who speak up for civil rights, within that context, have an easy time making the argument.
DonS,
Mespo can defend himself, but hasn’t shifted his position. He is merely stating that since it has been signed into law, only a court will decide who is ultimately correct in their respective interpretations.
DonS.,
I left out the word “he” in my first sentence.
rafflaw, I understand the role of the courts in settling questions. I also realize that the ink is barely dry on this piece of legislation so, to my mind, we are still very near the intersection of law and politics. That the bill is indeed signed does not quiet the ongoing issues involved, albeit they are highly politicized. Certainly Levin doesn’t seem to want to let it go. What’s a self respecting law professor to do?
I am less interested with whether mespo has shifted ground or not than I am concerned about the underlying principles and the political environment that has made this law possible.
OT, but it’s all connected really… (Time to quote Pogo…)
January 27, 2012
NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly Urged to Resign After Police Conceal Role in Anti-Muslim Documentary
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/1/27/nypd_commissioner_ray_kelly_urged_to
Amna Akbar spoke at Thursday’s protest. She is a supervising attorney at the CLEAR program, Creating Law Enforcement Accountability & Responsibility.
AMNA AKBAR: We’re standing together here today to call for Commissioner Kelly’s resignation, to call for the resignation of Paul Browne, to call on City Council to establish an independent community control and oversight mechanism, because we now know that the NYPD does not feel accountable to our communities. The NYPD functions in a very nontransparent way. That’s not right in a democracy, and it’s not right in this city. The NYPD must be held accountable. The NYPD must act transparently.
For many years now, there have been a number of revelations about the way that the NYPD is policing our communities. We have learned about the way that informants are surveilling and infiltrating our communities. We have learned about the demographics unit and the way that it’s literally creating maps of Muslims all around the city. We know that the NYPD was responsible in 2007 for the radicalization report that tied together aspects of Muslim identity with potential for future terrorism. And we know that the NYPD showed the film, the hateful propaganda, anti-Muslim film, The Third Jihad, to 1,500 officers during its training. Not only did the NYPD show this film to 1,500 officers, but Commissioner Kelly participated in its making.
….
LINDA SARSOUR: The film is absolutely outrageous. Any rational-minded person that watches it will say, “Wow! How did the New York Police Department, the largest police force in this country, supposedly the most credible, have access to this film?” And what’s most astonishing is that while the NYPD surveils our community and creates files on us and checks us and all this kind of intelligence, the fact that there was no due diligence on the part of the NYPD to check out who the Clarion Fund is and to look up—look at their history—you don’t even need to have intelligence; just go on Google and find out who these people are—and connecting the dots, and looking at, you know, someone like Sheldon Adelson, who like funded this film, is also funding Newt Gingrich. It’s all connected. And this Third Jihad is not a one-time, you know, just a film, and we’re all mad and offended. It’s not about being offended. It’s about the security of all New Yorkers. If one bad judgment like this is happening in the NYPD, only God knows what other films are being shown that we don’t have the names in order for us do a FOIA request on these films. It’s absolutely outrageous.
AMY GOODMAN: On the issue of—that Noel Leader raised, the retired New York police sergeant, about the overall targeting of the Muslim community, last year Democracy Now! spoke with Associated Press reporter Matt Apuzzo, who exposed how the New York police had secretly monitored mosques and Muslim communities after the September 11th attacks.
MATT APUZZO: They’re very aggressive at building informants. And, you know, they have a program that was known as the “Demographics Unit,” informally, inside the NYPD. The Demographics Unit, what they would do was they’d take ethnic officers out of the academy and drop them into ethnic neighborhoods, where they would basically be the eyes and the ears of the NYPD. They were undercover. They obviously didn’t work out of NYPD headquarters. They just were—hang out. And so, they’d kind of go to the bookstores and the libraries and the hookah bars and the clubs and the cafes, and just be the eyes and ears of the NYPD and listen for things that are suspicious.
AMY GOODMAN: You said they called for the names of all the Pakistani cab drivers in New York. They wanted the TLC—
MATT APUZZO: Yeah, that was—
AMY GOODMAN: —the taxi and limousine service—
MATT APUZZO: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: —to hand that over.
MATT APUZZO: Yeah, early on, you know, before these programs got going, I think there was just this real sense of urgency. There was all these threat streams coming in. There were—you know, the NYPD didn’t have any informants. And so, they kind of took some really ad hoc ways of trying to go about getting informants. And one was they asked the taxi cab commission just to give them a rundown of all of the Pakistani cab drivers, so they could look for maybe anybody who got it fraudulently. And then you could use that as leverage to help get yourself an informant.
And the other way is they looked and said, “Look, let’s just go and do—step up our traffic patrols in Pakistani neighborhoods. And if you’re running a red light or you’ve got a broken tail light or whatever, you know, we can use that as the means for a traffic stop and then see if there’s an outstanding warrant or if there’s anything we can use here, and then try to flip him and make him an informant, use that as leverage.” You know, they were—in some ways, they were kind of like acts of desperation.
AMY GOODMAN: This was from 9/11 right through until now. That was Matt Apuzzo, who exposed this for the Associated Press. Linda Sarsour, how has this affected your community? Talk about your demands to meet with the commissioner and also what happened at the interfaith breakfast, why the Arab leaders, Arab-American leaders, boycotted Mayor Bloomberg.
LINDA SARSOUR: Well, what Matt Apuzzo is talking about, this Demographics Unit, and sending, you know, undercover—but it’s actually beyond the undercover officers. We’re talking about NYPD informants. We’re talking about people who have trouble with the law, who break deals with the NYPD to come and surveil the everyday life of Muslims. We’re talking about just people praying at mosques, sitting at, you know, coffee shops. What this does is it creates paranoia in the community. It instills fear in people. You can’t trust anyone. Not only is there—becomes mistrust between us and law enforcement, which hinders the public safety of everyone, it also creates mistrust. You’re sitting at a mosque and you’re praying, and you don’t even know if the guy next to you is an informant. I mean, the NYPD’s main job, and the reason why our taxpayer dollar goes to them, is to make us all feel safe. And the Arab and Muslim communities are not safe in New York City.
And what we did was, is we want to continue to keep the story hot. Why? Because all New Yorkers should be outraged about this. This Demographic Unit is looking at 28 ancestries of interest, including Black Muslims. If that’s not religious and racial profiling, then I don’t know what that means. … and the interview continues…
My previous comment was too long. Sorry…
The point is that innocent people are getting caught in the headlights of a system that is rife with abuse.
“Is this the America we want to keep?” -Thomas Drake
Great link anon nurse. Add in the extra-legal CIA connection to the NYPD and it gets more depressing.
DonS:
I’d hire rafflaw tomorrow to be my mouthpiece and he has it correct. I don’t think I shifted my position though and wanted to explain further. Here it is:
1. I do agree with Levin and the Administration about the most likely interpretation of the Bill. I therefore disagree with JT.
2. The Bill is now law and any attempt to argue its usefulness or effectiveness or its potential threats is meaningless in the absence of a precise set of facts upon which you can base a decision. It’s like arguing how many angels fit on the head of a pin without knowledge of the size of the angels or that of the pin head. It’s just useless discussion in the abstract.
3. The point of my comment was not to re-argue the merits but simply to say that tit-for-tat dueling letters does not enhance the debate between these nationally recognized pillars of the legal profession.
4. I think questioning someone’s good will, patriotism, or good sense is inappropropriate when the contest is a rational argument between men of well-known good character. To me it cheapens the issue.
5. I do not find any language in any bill passed into law by Congress “meaningless,” ineffectual, or put there for any purpose other than the plain meaning of those words. Cf.,We are not at liberty to construe any statute so as to deny effect to any part of its language. It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that significance and effect shall, if possible, be accorded to every word. As early as in Bacon’s Abridgment, sect. 2, it was said that “a statute ought, upon the whole, to be so construed that, if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant.’ This rule has been repeated innumerable times.” Washington Market Co. v. Hoffman, [1879] USSC 96; 101 U.S. 112, [1879] USSC 96; , 25 L.Ed. 782 (1879).
Elaine M:
“If a person being detained has no right to legal counsel, how will a real case controversy be brought to light?”
******************
Current law provides for assistance of counsel and access to habeas relief via the courts. To deny that law or those rights would require an interpretation of the statute by who else? A court.
Mespo,
Good luck explaining your case to a lawyer ( IF they let you see one), after they’ve allowed you five hours of sleep over the last five months. Ask bradley manning.
ekeyra:
“Good luck explaining your case to a lawyer ( IF they let you see one), after they’ve allowed you five hours of sleep over the last five months. Ask bradley manning.”
**************************************
I think Mannings lawyer, David Coombs, Esq. has a good understanding of the case and is quite competent to defend it:
http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.com/army-lawyer.html
Here’s Mr. Coombs account of a typical day for his client:
PFC Manning is currently being held in maximum custody. Since arriving at the Quantico Confinement Facility in July of 2010, he has been held under Prevention of Injury (POI) watch.
His cell is approximately six feet wide and twelve feet in length.
The cell has a bed, a drinking fountain, and a toilet.
The guards at the confinement facility are professional. At no time have they tried to bully, harass, or embarrass PFC Manning. Given the nature of their job, however, they do not engage in conversation with PFC Manning.
At 5:00 a.m. he is woken up (on weekends, he is allowed to sleep until 7:00 a.m.). Under the rules for the confinement facility, he is not allowed to sleep at anytime between 5:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. If he attempts to sleep during those hours, he will be made to sit up or stand by the guards.
He is allowed to watch television during the day. The television stations are limited to the basic local stations. His access to the television ranges from 1 to 3 hours on weekdays to 3 to 6 hours on weekends.
He cannot see other inmates from his cell. He can occasionally hear other inmates talk. Due to being a pretrial confinement facility, inmates rarely stay at the facility for any length of time. Currently, there are no other inmates near his cell.
From 7:00 p.m. to 9:20 p.m., he is given correspondence time. He is given access to a pen and paper. He is allowed to write letters to family, friends, and his attorneys.
Each night, during his correspondence time, he is allowed to take a 15 to 20 minute shower.
On weekends and holidays, he is allowed to have approved visitors see him from 12:00 to 3:00 p.m.
He is allowed to receive letters from those on his approved list and from his legal counsel. If he receives a letter from someone not on his approved list, he must sign a rejection form. The letter is then either returned to the sender or destroyed.
He is allowed to have any combination of up to 15 books or magazines. He must request the book or magazine by name. Once the book or magazine has been reviewed by the literary board at the confinement facility, and approved, he is allowed to have someone on his approved list send it to him. The person sending the book or magazine to him must do so through a publisher or an approved distributor such as Amazon. They are not allowed to mail the book or magazine directly to PFC Manning.”
rafflaw,
And I cut the part about the CIA, but the CIA’s operative has been “removed.” The damage is done, however, and the practices continue…
As Linda Sarsour told Amy Goodman this morning:
“There must be an independent investigation done about the CIA and NYPD collaboration, as well as everything that we’re seeing, this pattern of abuse by the NYPD. Not just about surveilling Muslims, what about the arrest of Occupy Wall Street protesters? The harassment of journalists? What about the “stop and frisk” of black and Latino males? Gun running? Drug planting? I mean, the entrapment of young Muslim men in these outrageous, you know, terrorism cases? I mean, it’s not just about the Muslim community. The NYPD is “no holds barred” right now.”
AY,
Regarding:
“but for the bad conduct of the actors in the first place…they would never be in headlights or in the purview of law enforcement…” (in explaining mespo’s position, not your own)
This just isn’t true, of course… Good, decent, law-abiding people — good Americans — are being caught up in wicked snares, with no apparent way out… Even the innocent are getting caught in the headlights… as you already know… In some cases, if one gets on the wrong side of someone in law enforcement… well, I don’t need to spell it out… you get it…
——-
from today’s DemocracyNow interview (link above in earlier comment):
AMY GOODMAN: And the latest news, Linda, Wall Street Journal reporting a CIA operative’s unusual assignment inside the New York Police Department is being cut short. The agency’s inspector general opened an investigation after the Associated Press revealed how the NYPD spying operations put Muslim communities under scrutiny, many of those operations built in close collaboration with the CIA. The CIA was cleared of wrongdoing, but officials said the report criticized how the agency began its collaboration with city police. They say CIA oversight was haphazard when it sent in an operative to New York after the 2011 attacks.
LINDA SARSOUR: Interestingly enough, yes, the CIA did remove their operative from there. Originally, when that partnership started, it was never approved by the top CIA lawyer. But you say that the CIA says they found no wrongdoing. But who says that there was no wrongdoing? It was the CIA inspector general who did an investigation. And to tell the Muslim-American community, or any American, that the CIA did an inspection and investigation on the CIA? That, for me, is frivolous. I cannot do an investigation on myself and tell you that I did no wrongdoing. There must be an independent investigation done about the CIA and NYPD collaboration, as well as everything that we’re seeing, this pattern of abuse by the NYPD.
Not just about surveilling Muslims, what about the arrest of Occupy Wall Street protesters? The harassment of journalists? What about the “stop and frisk” of black and Latino males? Gun running? Drug planting? I mean, the entrapment of young Muslim men in these outrageous, you know, terrorism cases?
I mean, it’s not just about the Muslim community. The NYPD is “no holds barred” right now.
end of excerpt.
AY:
Thank you for the undeserved comparison to Justice Brennan. I think reasonable folks like you and me can differ, but we need not question each others motives or good will in the process without some proof of such scienter. That is all I was trying to say in my inital comment.
Mespo,
My rate is pretty cheap!
rafflaw:
Then you’re underpaid.
mespo,
“Current law provides for assistance of counsel and access to habeas relief via the courts. To deny that law or those rights would require an interpretation of the statute by who else? A court.”
My understanding was that under NDAA you have no right to counsel if you’re being indefinitely detained. Are you allowed to have any communication with family? If not–and if you aren’t allowed communication with anyone–how would anyone know what happened to you? Who would bring your case to court?
Mespo, entirely reasonable from your point of view. Thanks.
The jurisprudential niceties of statutory construction are one thing. The sausage making of actual legislation may be quite another, although formal and informal commentary on the process might reveal that each clause, sentence, or word does indeed have a meaning, and not necessarily complimentary to it’s originator.
Relying on the courts as the last bulwark against Congress exceeding Constitutional limits to the point of threatening fundamental civil rights is is the rallying cry of those who believe in the soundness of our system. Admirers of the system we call the American democracy say it has, over time, worked for over 200 years to produce, uh, Constitutional results!. Mostly I’m there.
And, no doubt, every chaotic era produces hand wringers who say the system is broken — and who can deny that Bush v. Gore, or Citizens United don’t portend the game being rigged, just to pick on the Sup Ct — and say the individuals who people our institutions aren’t living up to their oaths. I’m there, too.
So while your dispassionate view of the NDAA matter satisfies the requirements of a bloodless conformity to analytical lawyering, it rings hollow to me in this instance. The trend of increasing surveillance and short changing civil rights leaves me frightened, and mistrustful of government officials who all too easily seem to bend with the prevailing xenophobia. This is meant as no criticism of you personally — how could it be — but reminds me why I have shied away from the practice of law for a long time: the disconnect between law and just, IMO of course.
Last sentence: . . . law and justice . . .
When an elected member of Congress be he or she a Senator or a member of the House introduces and or votes for a bll that so clearly and unequivocally violates the Constition and prohibits access to the courts so that the law will never be reviewed, that person has violated his oath of office. As an American citizen I can and I will question the good will of those who voted for this bill. As a lawyer, I disagree with arguments that suggest that this law is anything less than an abridgement of the right to a jury trial before imprisonment. We are living in dark days indeed when Carl Levin is a staunch defender of such a law.
I thank J. Turley for his spirited defense of the Constution.
Have you ever seen a shell-game run at a county fair? Well, the final phases of NDAA enactment reminds me of that game.
As for the “justice is just” (pejorative?) Mespo 727272; I wonder what he would do if he was confined at a extraordinary renditiion site.
According to some, the Patriot Act consists solely of short revisions of the wording of hundreds of statutes. No wonder, Levin says he doesn’t know.
Only the crafters of the act might possibly.
AN,
to “AY,
Regarding:
“but for the bad conduct of the actors in the first place…they would never be in headlights or in the purview of law enforcement…” (in explaining mespo’s position, not your own)
This just isn’t true, of course… Good, decent, law-abiding people — good Americans — are being caught up in wicked snares, with no apparent way out… Even the innocent are getting caught in the headlights… as you already know… In some cases, if one gets on the wrong side of someone in law enforcement… well, I don’t need to spell it out… you get it…”
That I understand all too well…Then it is up to the Judge to not be a part of the problem…Unfortunately….Good People do get caught up in it…I recall Oliver North…He was doing as ORDERED…..RWR nor Bush could recall…I think the famous “I Don’t Remember” came into use and accepted….
Unfortunately….Good people do get caught in the Cops WEBs.I for one am very much concerned with those as well…
mespo,
Usually we agree….I still think You have the right to your Opinions….and I still Think that Brennan’s Opinions are some of the best and well reasoned…. and like I said…I did not agree with him on everything….But 99.9 % when the Constitution was involved….He was right….
Steeped as some of you are in Constitutional law, I wonder if your studies or readings included this interpretation?
http://www.sobran.com/articles/tyranny.shtml
Now I see no way to go back to the world of the Founding Fathers, as Sobran would. But it is indeed interesting, even for those of us who grown up post-Great Depression with Roosevelt’s constitutionally contested laws, to consider how far we have departed from requiring Constitutional amendments to expand powers of all three branches.
Take a look if you’re inclined to see another view.
It would, IMHO, be nice if we hadn’t so many laws which challenge our Bill of Rights: and as it further says, all rights not enumerated but reserved to the people.
Mespo,
Oh, your right. I guess everything is on the up and up. Those detention centers dont sound bad at all.
Lawfare (Wittes and Chesney) say about section 1022:
“The provision exempts U.S. citizens entirely, …..”
I thought that was what the contention was all about.
?????
Seems they think that Mespo 727272 and I are exempt from compulsory military detention under this section. (Discretionary?)
Cannot see that their interpretation/presentation of 1021 and 1023 say otherwise re U:S: citizen detention. But perhaps the powers under AUMF gives Obama that prerogative. The portion cited makes no reference to citizenship.
i am curious to see if anyone read David Coombs, Esq’s account of pfc manning’s day.
his cell is 6 ft by 12 ft.
i could lay on the floor of his cell with my head touching one wall and my feet touching the other.
x2 for the length
The cell has a bed, a drinking fountain, and a toilet.
for those of you who have never seen the inside of a cell the toilet and drinking fountain they are referring to is a combo toilet with a sink built on the back. to drink you put your finger in the faucet, turn the water on and a stream of water shoots out of a hole in the top of the faucet. your face is aprox two ft over the top of your toilet as you drink.
The guards at the confinement facility are professional. At no time have they tried to bully, harass, or embarrass PFC Manning. Given the nature of their job, however, they do not engage in conversation with PFC Manning.
no one speaks to him except to bark orders. all week (except weekends)
i bet the professional guards have a nickname or a pet name they refer to him as.
He is allowed to have any combination of up to 15 books or magazines. He must request the book or magazine by name. Once the book or magazine has been reviewed by the literary board at the confinement facility, and approved, he is allowed to have someone on his approved list send it to him.
wonder how long that takes
this has been his life every day since july 2010
as near as i can find he still does not have a trial date
We cannot wait for our time to come and then pose an objection. When they arrested Manning and put him in solitary confinement and obscene punishment prior to his conviction, I did not say anything because I was not Manning. When they tortured those people in Abu Grabve (sp) I did not say anything because I was not a Muslim and tortured there. When Rumsfeld announced that the Geneva Conventions were no longer in force I did not say anything. Levin is like von Hindenburg with his Rechstag Fire Decrees. Dont worry folks: these are not aimed at you. When Mespos time comes and they come for him there wont be anyone left to stand up for him. Except his dog. All you folks need dogs.
Justice Holmes:
Where in the NDAA do you see a repeal of SCOTUS’ opinion in Hamdi guaranteeing detainees the right to counsel? O’Connor wrote there ” Hamdi unquestionably has the right to access to counsel in connection with the proceedings on remand.”
Elaine M:
Hamdi says citizen enemy combatants have the right to counsel. See my comment/question to Justice Holmes. Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions that applies to enemy combatants specifies “The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” This includes the right to counsel. SCOTUS’ decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfield confirms the application of Article III to detainees.
mespo,
Have we followed the protocols of the Geneva Conventions in recent years? What about the practice of extraordinary rendition? People have been kidnaped, “diasppeared,” and tortured in black sites. Those individuals had no access to counsel. I guess I’m not as trusting as you that our country will abide by the rules we set in place.
Anyone who trusts those murderers is part and parcel to their crime.
Elaine,
Not to butt in, but I do not believe the extraordinary rendition program was used on citizens. That doesn’t mean that they couldn’t try.
Meso writes:
Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions that applies to enemy combatants specifies “The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”
‘Civilized’ is the perinent word here. When we gave up shame in favor of notoriety and 24/7 infotainment, we opted for barbarism. The rule of law has become a quaint morsel on the scrap heap of history.
Quotes from Prof. Turley’s earlier post on this subject are included in this American Thinker article, “Citizenship: Easy Come, Easy Go.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/citizenship_easy_come_easy_goes.html
The AT piece discusses the unavoidable fact that enemy combatants such as Hamdi and Awlaki, presumably cases that both the NDAA detention provisions as well as the recently proposed Expatriation Act were designed to address, were actually DUAL US citizens because of the controversial birthright citizenship practice.
The article addresses that practice, the resulting issues of dual citizenship at birth, and the fact that stripping individuals such as Hamdi or Awlaki of their US citizenship would not render them stateless.
In addition, if the birthright citizenship practice finds its basis in the 1898 ruling of Wong Kim Ark, it must be noted that neither Hamdi nor Awlaki had parents who were permanently domiciled in the US. The article also discusses the fact that Ark’s parents, because of the Burlingame Treaty in effect at that time, did not retain their allegiance to China, therefore Ark was theoretically not born with dual citizenship. It is difficult to argue that the interpretation of the 14th amendment under the really very narrow ruling of WKA mandates automatic citizenship for individuals like Hamdi or Awlaki.
Rather than addressing the problems to our national security caused by our toleration of dual citizenship or the “nonsense” of birthright citizenship (Judge Posner’s description, not mine—see the article), our Congress instead passes legislation that endangers the rights and protections of citizenship of all of us…
Gene, “Educating people on the steady erosion of their Constitutional rights is doing something. The first step in fixing any problem is knowing of the problem’s existence. Many Americans simply don’t know their rights much less when their rights are being attacked.”
No. bringing the truth to the table of how to eradicate the eradicators is what the people need, not a bunch of bs rhetoric about a system broke from the get, based entirely on deception.
Do you think for one minute that your ‘friend’ Turley would be on major network broadcasting if they didn’t support him and the propaganda he spreads that actually supports the impostor laws, and lawmen. Please.
Its not Conflation, its connection, and you know it but won’t admit it to yourself, as it would require you to accept being wrong about much.
rafflaw,
It was used on at least one Canadian citizen. He was kidnaped at an airport in the US and taken to a black site and tortured for months. He later won a financial settlement from his own government. I think extraordinary rendition speaks to who we are as a country. Has our country adhered to the Geneva Conventions in recent years? Have we brought suspected war criminals to trial? If our president can target citizens of this country for killing and if American citizens can be detained indefinitely, who is to say our government will abide by past court rulings? Call me a skeptic.
LDS,
Hey, you came close to a cogent reply this time. Congratulations.
The key term above being “close”.
They also have another term for conflation of the degree you’re displaying.
Paranoia.
By educating people on how their rights are under attack, JT is providing an invaluable public service – even if his message is carried by mass media with a proclivity for propaganda. You are indeed conflating message/messenger and the medium. He is one of the very few anti-propagandists on the air when it comes to discussing your rights. His method of combating the Big Lie of propaganda? Education and analysis. That you cannot make that distinction is your intellectual failure to bear.
Thanks for playing!
“Call me a skeptic.” (Elaine)
Yes, but,I would call you an outraged skeptic. Which any humanitarian might well be. But, too often, we are all so co-opted by the cushy lives we lead, or aspire to lead, that we are afraid to denounce the system because we are grateful for the crumbs we are given from the elite’s table, and/or don’t think we, as the true inheritors of this so-called democracy, deserve more.
Outrage on. Our governing class is either too stupid, or too coopted themselves to remember that governing on behalf of all the people, not some Wall Street driven model, is their charge.
Elaine,
I am aware of the Canadian incident, but I am not aware of a citizen grabbed aspartame of the rendition. I too am a skeptic, but the powers that be will have a more difficult time rendering a citizen.
raff
only if someone not being detained sees it.
Aspartame should be “as part “. It has been a long week.
raff,
Auto-complete is not your friend.
Sometimes hilariously so.
You could be right pete.
You are correct Gene. My fingers are too quick for the auto complete feature! I am glad that I am able to amuse you with my errors!
The Enemy Expatriation Act and the NDAA: Due Process Destroyed?
WRITTEN BY JOE WOLVERTON, II
WEDNESDAY, 25 JANUARY 2012
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/10655-the-enemy-expatriation-act-and-the-ndaa-due-process-destroyed
Excerpt:
In October, soon-to-be-retired Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) introduced an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act that would grant to the federal government the power to permanently divest an American of his citizenship if he is suspected of supporting “hostilities” against the homeland. A companion measure was brought to the House of Representatives by Congressman Charles Dent (R-Penn.).
The Enemy Expatriation Act, as the bills are known, augments the power of the federal government by allowing it to strip a suspect of his American citizenship based on nothing more than a suspicion of “engaging in, or purposefully or materially supporting, hostilities.” The text of the bill reads in relevant part:
A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality…committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
A careful reading of the preceding paragraphs reveals that as with so many of these unlawful acts which are suffocating the American body politic, cutting off the air of liberty by which we are made free, the key terms in this bill are intentionally vague so as to provide plenty of hazy cover for the federal government’s assault on the bedrock principles upon which our Republic was founded.
‘Enemy Expatriation Act’ Could Compound NDAA Threat to Citizen Rights
By ASHLEY PORTERO
1/24/12
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/286940/20120124/enemy-expatriation-act-bypass-citizen-protections-ndaa.htm
Excerpt:
As the controversy played out, legislation that could completely bypass the amended law was already in the works. In October, Rep. Charles Dent, R-Pa., and Sens. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., and Scott Brown, R-Mass., introduced a slight but powerful amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act that gives the government the authority to strip a person of their American citizenship if that person is accused or suspected of supporting “hostilities” against the U.S.
The amendment, known as the Enemy Expatriation Act, would allow the government to revoke Americans of their U.S. citizenship if they are accused or suspected of “engaging in, or purposefully or materially supporting, hostilities.” The sparse amendment, which defines “hostilities” as “any conflict subject to the laws of war,” does not say which government body — say a military tribunal or a congressional panel — has the power to brand suspected persons as hostiles.
Enemy Expatriation Act Could Circumvent NDAA Provision
Devon Chaffee, a legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the proposed amendment could theoretically be used to circumvent current laws, including the NDAA. If the amendment became law, the government could potentially revoke the citizenship of anyone deemed to be supporting hostilities against the U.S., thereby subjecting him or her to the indefinite military detention provision of the NDAA.
“Fortunately, it’s unlikely that Congress would pass something like this. If it did, the law would probably be found unconstitutional since the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress cannot revoke U.S. citizenship without a citizen’s consent,” Chaffee said.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1967 decision in Afroyim v. Rusk set that landmark precedent, ruling that the right of citizenship is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the nation’s high court actually overruled one of its own precedents set in Perez v. Brownell (1958), where it decided Congress is within its right to revoke U.S. citizenship in certain circumstances.
Elaine,
Great link about the Enemy Expatriation Act. After seeing the NDAA, I was wondering where that other shoe was.
Wouldn’t you know that Lieberman is behind that other shoe.
Gene,
I just found out about this bill tonight.
rafflaw,
And Scott Brown of Massachusetts.
Government could strip citizenship from Americans under Enemy Expatriation Act
http://rt.com/usa/news/expatriation-act-citizenship-ndaa-737/
Excerpt:
When Barack Obama inked the National Defense Authorization Act on New Year’s Eve, the president insisted that he wouldn’t use the terrifying legislation against American citizens. Another new law, however, could easily change all of that.
If the Enemy Expatriation Act passes in its current form, the legislation will let the government strike away citizenship for anyone engaged in hostilities, or supporting hostilities, against the United States. The law itself is rather brief, but in just a few words it warrants the US government to strip nationality status from anyone they identify as a threat.
What’s more, the government can decide to do so without bringing the suspected troublemaker before a court of law.
Under the legislation, “hostilities” are defined as “any conflict subject to the laws of war” and does not explicitly state that charges against suspects go to court.
Elaine,
I did see that Brown was a co-sponsor. I hope Elizabeth Warren hammers him on this piece of proposed legislation. It is one scary bill, but I can’t see how it would survive a court test.
Enemy Expatriation Act
By Phillip Larrea
1/20/2012
http://www.examiner.com/business-commentary-in-sacramento/enemy-expatriation-act
Congress is considering authorization to declare any U.S. citizen an enemy, revoke their citizenship, thereby stripping them of any rights or recourse to due process,. and then expatriating these ‘enemies of the state’ to parts unknown. H.R. 3166 introduced by Representative Charles Dent (R-PA) in the House and co-sponsored in the Senate by Joe Lieberman (I-CT), the Enemy Expatriation Act, has been wending its way through Congress since October- just in case NDAA didn’t make it through, apparently.
Hard to believe, isn’t it? Even more troublesome, is the question of why we are just hearing about this now. Where has the media been on this issue? Where was it on NDAA… on SOPA and PIPA? Mainstream media seems reluctant to take up these issues unless they have already ‘blown up’ on social media and citizen journals and blogs.
When we add up these various proposals, something wicked seems to be coming this way. NDAA and EEA authorize government to eliminate opposition. Think the Occupy Movement, for example. SOPA and PIPA would authorize a Federal agency to shut down any website or social media account that could be deemed as inciting civil unrest. And though, most Americans celebrated the grassroots campaign that stopped PIPA and SOPA in their tracks, neither of these proposed legislations are dead. Just delayed… like NDAA.
What is going on? Are we in mortal danger of imminent attack from some enemy, which our security agencies are constrained from making public? Is the government loading up on police authority in anticipation of information that, once revealed, will create such civil unrest as to be an existential threat from within? The Fourth Estate, the citizens’ branch of government, should be all over these civil rights issues. If they were, you wouldn’t be getting news like this, from someone like me.
Please see the following how this can affect any person citizen or non citizen even if he/she had no association with anything suspicious:
Messpo727272
I love this statement you quoted:
“As early as in Bacon’s Abridgment, sect. 2, it was said that “a statute ought, upon the whole, to be so construed that, if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant.’ This rule has been repeated innumerable times.” Washington Market Co. v. Hoffman, [1879] USSC 96; 101 U.S. 112, [1879] USSC 96; , 25 L.Ed. 782 (1879).”
However, nothing is mentioned by intention to loosely define, intentionally meant to be source of contention, similarly for confusing, deceitful, deceptive, or by combination or extension of existing statutes (from 1917), etc, etc can bite your ass unexpectedly when it arbitrarily suits them. Or the arbitrary enforcement, using entrapment, doctored evidence, steered prosecutions etc. of mentally defectives.
Thank god there are good defenders. Preferably former prosecutors with connections in the relevant system of justice. I won’t say more—–for now.
Re Geneva conventions:
Someone (Chomsky??) points out that we sign conventions (and ratify also), but with reservations. A nice list of examples was provided.
One I remember well was the convention against torture (etc.).
Our reservatuib was that the CIA could be the torturing agency operatíng without restrictions or prosecutions related to the convention.
So that seems to provide the reason for needing a position taking by Woo (?) in order for other agencies to use the same torture techniques. LOL.
Robert Baers, a former CIA agent, quickly learned the Washington rules, after 25 years of derringdo in Kurdistan, Libanon, Tadjikestan, etc.
He provides insight into Congress, menus for campaign contributions for Clinton meets in the WH, NSC staff as lobbyists for corporations, etc. etc.
His book, “See No Evil” is otherwise portrays the field agents life, and is censored and approved by the CIA. A book which portrays the CIA’s fall, and its commensurate lack of agents and OTG resources on what’s happening in Iran and the rest of terrorist land.
No wonder the president is uninformed when satellites are supposed to read the minds of terrorists. Impossible so far.
DonS
“Our governing class is either too stupid, or too coopted themselves to remember that governing on behalf of all the people, not some Wall Street driven model, is their charge.”
Yeah, representing the constituents might bring in campaign money, but otherwise NO SHEKELS. A eulogy is nice; a hundred mills or so is better.
re expatriation act
If by administrative ruling you are stripped of your citizenship; do you then have standing to be judged by a court?
let’s just complete the syllogism for those too shy or horrified:
“stripped of your citizenship”
hence, not an American citizen
ergo, eligible to be detained indefinitely
, , , , regardless of how many angels are dancing on the heads of NDAA authorized pins
This bill would nullify even the argument and, in practice, the effect of questioning the breadth and extent of indefinite detention under the NDAA. Just tidying up the noose for those who might have any remaining questions about who the masters are.
Like I’ve said, there is no political penalty for destroying constitutional rights as long as you wrap yourself in the flag while doing it.
The parallels of 1933 and Nine 11 of 2001 are striking.
In Germany they had the arson fire of their parliament bldg, The Reichstag.
—they blamed the Communists and went after them. I wasnt a Communist and so I didnt object.
The ostensibly civilized President, von Hindenburg passed the Reichstag Decrees, which denuded civil and criminal law protections.
In Sept 2001 someone took down the Twin Towers, hit the Pentagon,
USA passes Patriot Act, goes to War in Iraq and elsewhere in Afghan, Pakistan, whereever they are found to get the Muslims; Cheney, Rumsfeld under direct order from Hindenburg (sorry Bush) orders the suspension of the Geneva Conventions and any Human Rights treaties to go after the bombers—
— they blamed the Muslims and went after them. I wasnt a Muslim and so I didnt object.
In Germany von Hindenburg gets replaced in an election by Hitler. The laws are in place which replaced the laws with draconian measures for der Fuhrer.
More laws and decrees to go around the laws of Germany. They went after the gypsies, the Communists, the Democrats, the jews, the bad catholics, the army loyal to the law, the lawyers loyal to the law, the judges loyal to the law. —I wasnt a gypsy, communist, democrat, jew, bad catholic, in the army, not a lawyer, not a judge, so I didnt object.
They fought a war and I served. I didnt object.
Germany loses the war. The allies convene trials for war crimes and crimes against humanity. I had been a loyal soldier, a loyal civil worker in my village in Dachau, a young studen, a Sgt named Schultz: I know Nothing! I knew nothing. I dont have a nose and didnt smell the burning dead bodies in the death camp. It was all those Nazi nuts.
Fast forward to 2012. I know nuthing!
Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles…..
America, the beautiful, for ever waves of rape….
Dont mind me I am just a TalkinDog.
Oh wait. Once the ‘Enemy Expatriation Act’ is passed we’ll have to wait for an actual case before we can be certain the draconian words and intent are indeed draconian.
If you’ve got standing, a lawyer and, maybe, even an actual civilian court system . . .
See my comment above re the American Thinker article–does no one notice the unavoidable fact that both Hamdi and Awlaki were dual citizens because of the “nonsense” (the adjective used by Judge Posner) of the “birthright citizenship” practice?
NDAA and the Expatriation Act were both sold with reasoning that pointed to both of those cases. What do they have in common?
Again–my opinion is that instead of laws designed to strip citizenship or its rights–why is there no discussion on granting citizenship in the first place? Birthright citizenship creates dual citizens. Do you think Hamdi or Awlaki, if not automatically granted US citizenship at birth, would have been eligible to naturalize? Naturalized citizens are required to formally renounce past foreign citizenships, born dual citizens are not. Stanley Renshon has estimated there are at least 40 million dual citizens in the US. How many because of birthright citizenship? What does that mean to our national security? Imagine how that could play out in a time of real war.
But instead of dealing with those issues, to deal with the rare instances like Hamdi, laws are created that endanger the rights of citizenship of all of us…
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/citizenship_easy_come_easy_goes.html
Gene I Am not playing here. Just maybe that is the petard confusion. I Am not hoist. Not trying to be. Oh there is a petard I Am wielding. But the fact you or anyone else here cannot recognize it is the very proof of its need.
No one, and I mean no one that makes it to the big screen has even touched on the base problem, did i say no one?
Living Soul Life works by consent, and that properly by fully disclosed ramification.
The law says anyone who enters an agreement without knowing the details is insane. To your advantage, the law says one who is insane cannot be held responsible. You, no longer have that option, as time as you know it is coming to a close. Since the Hague this planet changed course for specific universal reason. Do you know what that is? I think not, but you can and only if you remove the alter.
When one considers that half the species on the planet will be gone in 100 years, at the rate it is going right now, it takes thought to another level high above intellectual masturbation.
America has been a so called nation that has functioned on bonds; resulting in its inhabitants being put into bondage. Your bond is your word. No one else’s, yet, is this the case with You? If You are honest, You have found yourself doing much You don’t choose to do. You endure what is not your burden that has come about by others choices.
All Living Souls on the planet have to search themselves, and then unite in natural procedure to correct One’s view and purpose as all have strayed in some way. That’s it, that’s my point. And One has made that possible. Turley or anyone else in the ‘public eye’ that know about it won’t dare touch on it. Do you know why? I think not, as you and the rest on this thread are busy making themselves feel good, and a part of the solution, yet none of you have one or even a clue where to find it.
I do. And my whole purpose for being here is to find one, or some that care enough to find out.
This law does not go into effect until March. Can you imagine if people, left and right, called their Congress person and the president saying: I will never support you with time, money or words of praise unless you immediately reverse this law not only with regards to American citizens but concerning any person?
If Levin is this nervous because one person, JT, is writing the truth about what he did, imagine what a whole group of people could do! We need to use the power we do have.
Do not grovel before the powerful because they will take that as a greenlight to do anything.
Levin is not up for re-election. If the republicans take over the Senate as they are predicted to do, “bomb iran” John McCain as the ranking republican would become chair. Don’t think Levin is scared just concerned about his reputation. Be careful what you wish for.
S.M.,
Please reread my post. I will repeat it for you since you didn’t get it the first time!
This law does not go into effect until March. Can you imagine if people, left and right, called their Congress person and the president saying: I will never support you with time, money or words of praise unless you immediately reverse this law not only with regards to American citizens but concerning any person?
If Levin is this nervous because one person, JT, is writing the truth about what he did, imagine what a whole group of people could do! We need to use the power we do have.
Do not grovel before the powerful because they will take that as a greenlight to do anything.
Jill, My congress people are hard right republicans, and they like the bill. They probably don’t think it goes far enough. I can contact the president’s office though.
That’s great! Why not do it then! The president likes the bill also, he did sign it, so I would call both your congress people and him.
http://blog.american.com/2011/01/keep-guantanamo-open/ John Cornyn is one. He says he wants to block Obama from closing Gitmo. The people that represent me in congress far are all far far to the right of Obama and Levin.
Call them all! What do you have to lose but some time! Be bold!
BTW,
You do know that Obama could have closed Gitmo, just as he promised, all by himself? The idea that Congress is the one holding back Obama from doing so, is a piece of propaganda floated by the administration to keep his supporters in line. He said he’d do that his first days in office. He didn’t do that. Instead he increased the prison in Afghanistan and just gave another contract to enlarge that facility.
That’s exactly like his many other lies, lies such as he couldn’t get single payer when in fact he was the guy who took it off the table. We must be careful not to mislead people about what Obama is really doing.
Jill, You always go back to Obama. lol
Why is that wrong? This is about Obama and your post was about Obama. It’s so odd that you are allowed to speak of him but I am not! You Obama supporters sure don’t like any criticism of your guy!!!
Still, I would recommend the following to all. It’s my original post. Interestingly it speaks equally to Obama and Congress.
This law does not go into effect until March. Can you imagine if people, left and right, called their Congress person and the president saying: I will never support you with time, money or words of praise unless you immediately reverse this law not only with regards to American citizens but concerning any person?
If Levin is this nervous because one person, JT, is writing the truth about what he did, imagine what a whole group of people could do! We need to use the power we do have.
Do not grovel before the powerful because they will take that as a greenlight to do anything.
SwM and Jill,
I just figured Jill out, you know…….her fixation.
Well, it is the jilted lover syndrome, bitter and never forgetting or forgiving.
She’ll even go piss on his grave, if not kill him outright.
In this case, she fell in love with his BS, and then found out, as Michelle said: “The girls think he smells bad. ”
His armor tarnished quickly in the toxic fumes of the Beltway.
Me, yeah, disappointed, sure. But I prefer sanity to RWA leaders.
Jill. Obama deserves to be criticized, but he is not the source of all evil.
Jill,
First positive word I’ve heard in weeks.
S.M. and idealist,
You are both very silly! You still misstate what I’m saying so I’ll just repeat it! I also love how you both feel calling Republicans the source of all evil is acceptable, godly and true!!! I don’t believe that about Obama or Republicans but you’ve certainly reserved your own right to say that about Republicans. That’s called hypocrisy!
Still, I would recommend the following to all. It’s my original post. Interestingly it speaks equally to Obama and Congress, both Republicans and Democrats.
This law does not go into effect until March. Can you imagine if people, left and right, called their Congress person and the president saying: I will never support you with time, money or words of praise unless you immediately reverse this law not only with regards to American citizens but concerning any person?
If Levin is this nervous because one person, JT, is writing the truth about what he did, imagine what a whole group of people could do! We need to use the power we do have.
Do not grovel before the powerful because they will take that as a greenlight to do anything.
Jill,
I said it was a good idea.
And I write to Obama often, through the official WH channel. He hasn’t replied yet. Yes, my missives are mostly castigations based on civil rights deterioration. That is the most important of all to me, who heard the voice of McCarthy, as I’ve written.
“The government has filed its opposition to cert in the case of Al Madhwani v. Obama–a Guantanamo habeas case. Al Madhwani’s cert petition seeks review of this DC Circuit opinion affirming his detention. That opinion, in turn, affirmed District Judge Thomas Hogan’s earlier opinion. The government’s argument is interesting because it explicitly invokes the new language in the NDAA”
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/01/al-madhwani-cert-opposition-filed/
Levin and the Executive Branch are playing with fire.
Another in a long series of shameful disgraceful actions: Korematsu, the Cherokee Trail of Tears, Tuskegee syphillis experimentation, cointellpro, Guantanamo, Salvador Allende …
How many Medals of Freedom will future presidents have to distribute to make up for this?
One for every Living Soul!
Jill,
Would you please detail how Obama could have closed Gitmo on day one? What would he have done with the prisoners? If moved stateside, where would they go? Would they go to one state or many states? What states had adequate facilities? Would such moves require state cooperation? Would some go to home countries? What other countries would agree to accept some prisoners? How would it have been financed?
My point…..it’s complicated. And most people would find it responsible and prudent to understand that it would take a year to close Gitmo. Wasn’t that the Executive Order? Unfortunately, he did not have a year before the country was convinced that we couldn’t possibly move the prisoners to the US. And that sort of shot down asking other countries to take them in.
Peter Sherinian
It does not matter what Mister Levin thinks, even if he is the author of the bill, it only matters what the President thinks. Mister Levin is not the President, he does not have to do the dirty work. The President is the one who has to figure out this law and follow it.
Great video Frank. They (so called senate, congress, and president) are all guilty of treasonous acts. Examples: the Federal Reserve Act, The Social Security Act, and of course NDAA, etc.
As I read the comments I am struck by the name calling and the childishness of the responses. You obviously know nothing of the Senator’s record.
Perhaps I should regard the tone of your responses and ignore the content since they show only your ignorance and immaturity. I suggest a reasoned approach if you are going to address the Senator, as I will. Expressing yourself as if you saw someone cheating at hopscotch isn’t the way.
John Kelly can you be a little more judgmental and condescending ?
John Kelly:
One does well to cite specific instances or to speak for ones self only. Not everyone was ignorant of Senator Levin’s accomplishments and many posts were well-written and offered substantive rebuttal. You can’t paint a Monet with one wide brush.