In one of the greatest attacks on civil liberties in this country’s history, Democratic and Republican Senators voted yesterday to approve a measure as part of the $662 billion defense bill that would allow for the military to hold both citizens and non-citizens indefinitely without trial — even those arrested on U.S. soil. In a welcomed change, President Obama has committed his Administration to fighting the measure as inimical to the rule of law. The measure was pushed by Carl Levin (D – Michigan) and John McCain (R – Arizona). While some members of Congress like Ron Paul (R., Texas) have denounced the bill, the measure passed at the same time that Administration lawyers publicly declared that the military and intelligence agencies alone should decide whether a citizen should be killed without a charge or hearing (including killing citizens on U.S. soil) — a position supported by President Obama who has ordered the killing of U.S. citizens under his claim of inherent authority.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, tried to pass an amendment that would have limited it to suspects captured “abroad” — a measure that still raised constitutional and international law problems. However, even that modest amendment failed on a vote of 45 to 55. Here is the voting roster, which includes Democrats Begich (D-AK), Casey (D-PA), Levin (D-MI), Inouye (D-HI), Landrieu (D-LA), Manchin (D-WV), McCaskill (D-MO), Pryor (D-AR), as well as independent Lieberman (ID-CT). A watered down amendment was then passed 99-1 that left the matter (it would appear) to the Administration. 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.
Virtually all Democrats and Republicans voted to strip citizens of their rights in a vote of 93-7.
What is fascinating is the Senators insisted on passing the provision despite the fact that the Directors of the FBI and CIA, the secretary of defense, and the director of national intelligence have all opposed it on national security and legal grounds. Nevertheless, people like McCaskill who are running for reelection want to prove that they are tough on terrorism by stripping citizens to the right to basic due process rights. The fact that the Democratic and Republican Senators took this step without even holding a hearing is a testament to the state of civil liberties in the United States.
It is unclear whether the President will have the integrity and courage to carry through on this pledge to veto this pernicious bill. For civil libertarians, we have reached our Alamo moment where the most basic principles of the rule of law are at stake. The Congress has long been indifferent if not hostile to civil liberties, but as discussed in an earlier column (and here), civil liberties has reached one of the lowest ebbs in both politics and policy in this country’s history. Such measures are now met with a gigantic and collective shrug from an indifferent populace.
The national debate has become positively otherworldly for civil libertarians. As the Senate set about rolling back civil liberties, Administration lawyers — CIA counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson — publicly explained to an audience this week that the decision whether to kill a U.S. citizens anywhere and anytime must be left solely to the discretion of the military and intelligence branches. President Obama has supported this view and claims the right to kill any citizen on his unilateral and unchecked executive authority. I discussed this horrific policy in a prior column (and here).
How did we come to this place? Well, it took the joint efforts of both parties and a country that has been lured into a dangerous passivity by years of war rhetoric. We now appear to define ourselves by our lifestyle rather than our rights. Being American appears to be treated as conclusory and self-evident — untethered to our defining principles. So in comes to this. The loss of the most basic right of citizens met not by applause but, even worse, a collective yawn.
Here is the Senate bill: BILLS-112s1867pcs
Source: Newser
Bron, you clearly either did not take Economics 101, or if you did, you did not understand the content.
The rich do not create wealth. They take it. The money comes from shaking the money tree. The crash of 1929 was brought on by the same kind of greed and the money being sucked into such a small focus it might as well have been the singularity of a black hole.
Shake the money tree, aka the rich 1%. There is no reason Warren Buffet should pay a lower tax rate than his office staff. Mitt Romney made a fortune by firing employees when it was most financially beneficial to him personally.
OS:
“There will be no production unless people have money to spend.”
Ok, where does that money come from?
Great blog! I’m glad I found it.
Forget U.S. constitution cause it doesn’t mean anything. This is quite scary because a police state is prevailing.
http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/published_study/PERI_military_spending_2011.pdf
OS,
Bron has no intention of opening his eyes to reality and facts.
Bron, you have it bass ackward. There will be no production unless people have money to spend. Production does not start until there is demand. No demand, no production. No money or jobs and no demand. Poor low paying jobs and demand is minimal when people are barely scraping by.
The genius of the New Deal programs such as CCC and WPA were to put people to work and that increased the money supply into the hands of the working class. That increased demand for goods which increased production. The Republicans fought it of course, even to the point where Prescott Bush and his cronies tried to set up a coup to overthrow the government.
rafflaw:
that is consumption. production is first required, that is why I think you must have a favorable environment for business to produce.
You cannot consume without first producing.
let’s fantasize for a sec and write a script for a twilight zone episode….
Right after the new law goes into effect, Carl Levin and John McCain are arrested and held indefinitely for creating this law…..
good for a few seconds of relief, now back to our regular programming….
Bron,
The only way you are going to have a healthy economy is to create demand for products or services. Without a living wage you will not get the demand that is needed.
Obama Should Veto Empire Over Republic
Posted: 12/ 3/11
by Coleen Rowley (Former FBI Special Agent)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/ndaa-military-detainment_b_1126781.html
Excerpt:
The NDAA is deliberately confusing for political purposes but much is at stake. Obama’s determination as to whether or not he will veto the problematic 2012 war funding bill will determine how Benjamin Franklin’s glib response to the woman waiting outside the Constitutional Convention is ultimately answered. Franklin and other founding fathers had created “a Republic, Madam, if you can keep it”. But a lawless Military Empire could now await where U.S. “emergency war powers” trump the Constitution, where the Commander in Chief becomes king for a term(s), the military enters into police state actions in violation of 130 years of Posse Comitatus law, and the Constitution becomes as quaint as the Geneva Conventions were for Alberto Gonzalez and the Bush Administration.
Corrupted, compliant politicians have already allowed their fears to get the better of them by going along with pre-emptive war in violation of the Nuremberg Principles and international law and torturing in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture. So why should they also not go for detaining American citizens without constitutional rights or trial?
Tell your congresspersons and senators who passed the NDAA they should be ashamed and tell the president (also via Senator Mark Udall’s petition) he needs to keep his promise to veto this Act in order to save our Republic. (end of excerpt)
rafflaw:
if a job is worth $10/hour how can you pay $20? Where will the money come from?
You do understand that when you hire a contractor he gives you a price and he builds an addition for you. Do you tell the contractor you want to pay $20/hour for the laborer who is only worth $10/hour in the market place? A living wage is all well and good but if you dont get a job you cannot pay anyone. Jobs do not grow on trees.
The best thing for labor is a healthy economy so they sell their skills for the highest possible amount. When times were good around here you could get a job at McDonalds for $10/hour which was almost 150% of what minimum wage was.
But I do tend to agree with you, why should a CEO make $15 million/year when they are laying people off. But then maybe we as a country put to much stock in public companies. If you own stock you are guilty of preventing labor from receiving a “living” wage. Since you want to maximize your return on your investment.
So I say, put your money where your ideals are and divest your retirement account and put it into realestate or gold so you wont be guilty of supporting companies which do not pay a “living” wage.
In fact I did that, I got tired of CEO fat cats taking millions out of the companies I owned and not doing much of anything for the stock price or for their workers. It doesnt take a genius to fire people, I could do that myself. And what about Michael Eisner [formerly Disney chief]? Gets paid millions of dollars for re-releasing Pinnochio? WTF? They must have had some real dim bulbs at that company.
Seven Senators voted “Nay”: Coburn, Harkin, Lee, Merkley, Paul, Sanders, Wyden. It seems the least we can do is email a “Thank you” to the only ones who seem to “get it” and care. Wyden and Merkley are from Oregon.
Bron,
The only value that you place on labor is how much money that you can make off of the efforts of laborers. A man does have the right to his own life, but not to prevent laborers from making a living wage.
rafflaw:
no, what people like me value is human beings. what the left values is the state. And this law is perfectly compatible in every way with collectivism.
we value the right of a laborer to keep the money he earned from the sweat of his brow, which no other man has a right to.
that you think it crap that a man has a right to his own life and thus the sweat on his brow is is very interesting.
Bron, that is a bunch of crap about progressives not believing in personal liberty. If anyone believes in economic liberty it is progressives. The Right does not value labor, only capital.
Mespo:
“Again, every malefactor, by attacking social rights, becomes on forfeit a rebel and a traitor to his country; by violating its laws be ceases to be a member of it; he even makes war upon it. In such a case the preservation of the State is inconsistent with his own, and one or the other must perish; in putting the guilty to death, we slay not so much the citizen as an enemy. The trial and the judgment are the proofs that he has broken the social treaty, and is in consequence no longer a member of the State. Since, then, he has recognised himself to be such by living there, he must be removed by exile as a violator of the compact, or by death as a public enemy; for such an enemy is not a moral person, but merely a man; and in such a case the right of war is to kill the vanquished.”
JJ Rousseau
The Social Contract Book II section V
He also says the above so I am not so sure Rousseau is a good one to quote on this subject.
Generally Rousseau is not a supporter of individual rights, I think you might do better quoting Locke.
Because Rousseau also says this in Section V:
“Furthermore, the citizen is no longer the judge of the dangers to which the law-desires him to expose himself; and when the prince says to him: “It is expedient for the State that you should die,” he ought to die, because it is only on that condition that he has been living in security up to the present, and because his life is no longer a mere bounty of nature, but a gift made conditionally by the State.”
Which is not all that different from what most progressives believe.
Rousseau is not talking out of both sides of his mouth. So I submit this bill is perfectly in keeping with the general philosophical atmosphere in this nation at the current time which is more in keeping with Rousseau than Locke or Jefferson. And that atmosphere is anti-individual liberty.
rafflaw:
“I am shocked that Levin would have voted for this piece of crap.”
Why? He is as anti-individual rights as most of them. McCain is no better than Herman Goering in my opinion and I have thought that for a good long time. He is definitely a tyrant.
I dont know why this should shock any liberal progressive, you have believed in a living evolving constitution, not one devoted to the single concept of individual rights.
The first time a progressive thought it was a good idea to take bread from one man and give to another was the beginning of the end. When a man has no right in the sweat of his brow and a mans work is not respected, why do you think his life would be respected?
Economic and political liberty are conjoined twins.
Progressives dont believe in economic liberty and apparently neither party believes in political liberty.
Mr. Fromm,
I do not think the three alleged hikers were actual hikers. Who in their right mind would hike in Iraq? I think they were there on some sort of mission and got caught. No evidence, just my gut reaction. That being said, we still have a problem here and it is just getting worse.