There was a brief moment when civil libertarians were stunned to see President Barack Obama actually take a stand in favor of civil liberties after years to rolling back on basic rights of citizens and moving beyond the Bush Administration in building up the security state. Obama said that he would veto the defense bill that contained a horrific provision for the indefinite detention of American citizens. While many predicted it, Obama has now again betrayed the civil liberties community and lifted the threat of the veto. Americans will now be subject to indefinite detention without trial in federal courts in a measure supported by both Democrats and Republicans. It is a curious way to celebrate the 220th anniversary of the Bill of Rights.
This leave Ron Paul as the only candidate in the presidential campaign fighting the bill and generally advocating civil liberties as a rallying point for his campaign. Paul offered another strong argument against the Patriot Act and other expansions of police powers in his last debate. He also noted that the Patriot Act provisions were long advocated before 9-11, which was used as an opportunity to expand police powers. As discussed in a prior column, Obama has destroyed the civil liberties movement in the United States and has convinced many liberals to fight for an Administration that blocked torture prosecutions, expanded warrantless surveillance, continued military tribunals, killed Americans on the sole authority of the President, and other core violations of civil liberties.
The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is facially ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. 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 Administration and Democratic members are in full spin — using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.
At least Senator Lindsey Graham was honest when he said on the Senate floor that “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”
I am not sure which is worse: the loss of core civil liberties or the almost mocking post hoc rationalization for abandoning principle. The Congress and the President have now completed a law that would have horrified the Framers. Indefinite detention of citizens is something that the Framers were intimately familiar with and expressly sought to bar in the Bill of Rights. While the Framers would have likely expected citizens in the streets defending their freedoms, this measure was greeted with a shrug and a yawn by most citizens and reporters. Instead, we are captivated by whether a $10,000 bet by Romney was real or pretend in the last debate.
Even more distressing is the statement from sponsor Senator Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee that “The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved … and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section.”
Source: Guardian
FLOG THE BLOG: Have you voted yet for the top legal opinion blog? WE NEED YOUR VOTE! You can vote at HERE by clicking on the “opinion” category. Voting ends December 31, 2011.
—————————————————————–
Section 1031:
Subtitle D–Detainee Matters
SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) Authorities- 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.
(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘covered persons’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
Nate,
The world does not revolve around yours or my situations. Overall, it has improved. We were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs per month at the end of the Bush administration. We have produced 14 straight months of private sector jobs. Actually, the 401k accounts that lost during the 2007 and 2008 debacle actually have regained all or most of their losses, if they dd not divest prior to the Wall street comeback.
ah, thanks Gene H.
Those riot helmets look like the lightweight, white (for hot climates) version of NYPDs riot gear. They bought them with ‘foreign aid’. Stylish.
Jlue, I used to read Science fiction in my past, I never do now. He also read many other philosophers, Niebuhru, am sure he read the Bible, etc. Obama is well read. Building infrastructure that helps business and commerce benefits everyone. So we try to do things in community to achieve things we could not on our own. It can create prosperity and does in many cases.
Nate: I graduated during the recession of the 1970’s. It took decades for my generation to overcome, except for the trust fund kids. It is much, much worse now, then you could move to another state where things might be better. My business deals with the Euro, it is really appalling what is happening. We are all anxious. It could be a catastrophe.
I am sincerely afraid that if OWS is not successful in wrestling our government from Wall Street, the world will become a very dangerous place.
Everything after the ampersand confuses WordPress, shano.
Hillarys friends in Bahrain. Our fate with secret prisons, detentions without trial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dIagZaG3O4&feature=player_embedded
Raf,
“…The economy has improved since he took over…”
Improved for who? For you?
It certainly hasn’t for me. I graduated college with a international business degree in December ’08, 3 months after the economy crashed. Without going into the details of the misery and pain I went through, do pray tell for whom the economy has improved. Homeowners? Pensioners watching their pensions shrivel? College graduates?
The stock market, yes.
Didn’t help me any, although in the big picture that’s besides the point. If Germany pulls out of the Euro because they want a strong currency and can’t get it any other way…
The risk of a global meltdown is very real. Of course, I may be delusional.
Still doesn’t change the fact that according to the Rule of Law, Obama ought to be on trail, not heading into another term of the highest office in the land. Maybe that’s a fact, maybe that’s an opinion, but that’s where I’m coming from and that’s where I’m heading to.
There’s a difference between the economy improving and people’s lives improving. Has the sum of people’s lives improved? If not, I don’t give a fuck about the “economy.”
Nate,
your comment alleging that the actions taken by the Obama Administration have worsened the global economic problems is blatantly untrue. The economy has improved since he took over. Europe is following the Republican mantra of austerity and they are making matters worse for Europe and for Wall Street. We have grown jobs for months even with the Right forcing state and local government job losses. The stimulus has helped our economy, but trying to emulate Europe will not improve the economy. Our stimulus was not designed to fix the World economy. Only ours. Check out the CBO and their numbers of actual job gains, not predictions.
Shano, When you interject race into a discussion where race has no place, I immediately wonder about your motives.
Socialism, simply defined, is government ownership of means of production and distribution of capital. Obama began the mantra, “redistribute wealth” prior to being elected. It is true that Obama isn’t the first president who has shown an interest in social programs. FDR began many social programs. We have many socialist programs. How does this change anything about who Obama is or isn’t? It does not change that in any way.
In 1996, Obama received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America for his Illinois state senate seat. Socialism’s roots may be traced to Marx. Is it fair to suggest Obama may be a Marxist? I think it is unfair unless there is evidence to back up the accusation. In Obama’s case, it is fair to say that he has Marxist associations and appears to have leanings in that direction. He had an interest in the writings of Marx in his early years. Obama, according to Obama, had as a mentor a man named Frank. All who study his past conclude this was Frank Marshall Davis. Davis was a communist. This does not make Obama a communist. It does, when taken with his friendship with men like Bill Ayers, lend credibility to charges that he is very far to the left in his political ideology.
Americans should not fight over discussions about factual information of who a person is or isn’t. Americans should look carefully at candidates and political figures to decide what we want for America. This discussion began with the National Defense Authorization Act and whether or not it will allow citizens to be detained indefinitely. Forgive me for suggesting that we should not be surprised by the signing of the bill by Obama. If you, as an American do not want to know who Obama is, then don’t attempt to find out who he is.
For those who do care, Obama may sign the bill, but we also need to look at who in Congress supported this legislation. It is time to clean house.
Many who do not like things they learn about Barack Obama immediately begin to yell, “You don’t like him because he is black.” That is so lame.
Actually, the headline is a bit misleading. Obama set himself up as being on both sides of this issue. In 2009 Obama insisted on indefinite detention. The hoo-haw about the veto is b/c it DIDN”T include American citizens, but that wasn’t what he told us. He kept one promise and broke his smokescreen promise. Either way, he got what he wanted. I didn’t vote for him (or McCain) but i really was hoping for “his hope and change” Well, we didn’t get either, unless you consider that he went much further than Bush as the change – not what I was hoping for.
Having trouble typing due to anger and frustration.
NDAA and the Patriot Act, replacing national security with national secrecy:
Our much too recent history from the year 2000 and the election of Bush over Gore is too raw a wound I imagine. People are still pissed off at Nader for saying that there was no difference between those two candidates.
Even if we all know very well these days that statement about only having one party in America, the Corporate Favors party, is more true than ever.
It is a terrible conundrum that leaves us few choices in the election of 2012.
I’m going to repeat … Obama is shallow … watch Biden for he is the one tasked to work with the Senate and House and thus the one who gets the job done for the Administration … he’s the bigger disappointment.
Mr. Spindell,
“I and many others have solid personal reasons for voting for Obama over anyone so far suggested. If I was to lose my social security/medicare benefits, or have them substantially reduced, I would be reduced to poverty.”
With all due respect, I find it interesting that you believe if Obama receives a second term, this won’t happen.
The global financial system is now on life-support. The U.S. bailouts have not eliminated this problem but exasperated it: there are now less tools in the arsenal to combat a problem that has grown and spread to European shores. There is a very real risk that the entire house of cards will come tumbling down.
Obama betrayed us all, you think he’s going to care about your needs?
“but I’m not willing to allow further harm to be visited upon the 99% of this nation by grand gestures motivated by anger.” (Mike S.)
The mark of integrity
Three myths about the detention bill
BY GLENN GREENWALD
Salon, 12/16/11
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/
Excerpt:
Condemnation of President Obama is intense, and growing, as a result of his announced intent to sign into law the indefinite detention bill embedded in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). These denunciations come not only from the nation’s leading civil liberties and human rights groups, but also from the pro-Obama New York Times Editorial Page, which today has a scathing Editorial describing Obama’s stance as “a complete political cave-in, one that reinforces the impression of a fumbling presidency” and lamenting that “the bill has so many other objectionable aspects that we can’t go into them all,” as well as from vocal Obama supporters such as Andrew Sullivan, who wrote yesterday that this episode is “another sign that his campaign pledge to be vigilant about civil liberties in the war on terror was a lie.” In damage control mode, White-House-allied groups are now trying to ride to the rescue with attacks on the ACLU and dismissive belittling of the bill’s dangers.
For that reason, it is very worthwhile to briefly examine — and debunk — the three principal myths being spread by supporters of this bill, and to do so very simply: by citing the relevant provisions of the bill, as well as the relevant passages of the original 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), so that everyone can judge for themselves what this bill actually includes (this is all above and beyond the evidence I assembled in writing about this bill yesterday):
Myth # 1: This bill does not codify indefinite detention
Section 1021 of the NDAA governs, as its title says, “Authority of the Armed Forces to Detain Covered Persons Pursuant to the AUMF.” The first provision — section (a) — explicitly “affirms that the authority of the President” under the AUMF ”includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons.” The next section, (b), defines “covered persons” — i.e., those who can be detained by the U.S. military — as “a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” With regard to those “covered individuals,” this is the power vested in the President by the next section, (c):
(NOTE: I couldn’t copy and paste section C, which was included in Greenwald’s article.)
It simply cannot be any clearer within the confines of the English language that this bill codifies the power of indefinite detention. It expressly empowers the President — with regard to anyone accused of the acts in section (b) – to detain them “without trial until the end of the hostilities.” That is the very definition of “indefinite detention,” and the statute could not be clearer that it vests this power. Anyone claiming this bill does not codify indefinite detention should be forced to explain how they can claim that in light of this crystal clear provision.
It is true, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, that both the Bush and Obama administrations have argued that the 2001 AUMF implicitly (i.e., silently) already vests the power of indefinite detention in the President, and post-9/11 deferential courts have largely accepted that view (just as the Bush DOJ argued that the 2001 AUMF implicitly (i.e., silently) allowed them to eavesdrop on Americans without the warrants required by law). That’s why the NDAA can state that nothing is intended to expand the 2001 AUMF while achieving exactly that: because the Executive and judicial interpretation being given to the 20o1 AUMF is already so much broader than its language provides.
But this is the first time this power of indefinite detention is being expressly codified by statute (there’s not a word about detention powers in the 2001 AUMF). Indeed, as the ACLU and HRW both pointed out, it’s the first time such powers are being codified in a statute since the McCarthy era Internal Security Act of 1950, about which I wrote yesterday.
raff,
“By the way, couldn’t you find any authors with any Irish names??”
Just for you: http://www.innatenonviolence.org/pamphlets/nonviolence.pdf
Blouise,
To appropriate an appropriate phrase, “One lives to be of service.”
Gene,
First … thanks for the clip … you devil, you …
Second … “Knowing how to resist is as important as knowing when to resist.” wise, wise words especially for the young … and the pdf was a generous act.
Gene,
Very appropriate movie clip! Harumph indeed! By the way, couldn’t you find any authors with any Irish names?? 🙂