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).
Mr. Spindell,
I respectfully disagree.
That is all, thank you.
And what has the government done with the Social Security money? Congress constantly tries to find a way to increase taxes (get their hands on the worker’s money). How much money would each senior and disabled person now have if their money, rather than being taken by the government, had been invested in a safe interest bearing account over the years. Not all investors have lost money. We hear about those who lose, not the millions who earn money. Look at the big picture!
Bdaman,
Now that’s funny. Pathetic, egotistical and untrue, but funny.
“Why is this important to distinguish?”
Because they are different things. It was good advice when Marcus Aurelius admonished us to “ask of each and every thing what is it in itself” and it’s still good advice today. Apples are not oranges even if you don’t like either.
“For those who agree with Carl Marx and socialism”
First, it’s Karl. Second, Marxism and socialism is a false equivalence. In Marxist theory, socialism (in its varied forms) is not an end form in itself, but a historical stepping stone to an inevitable communist form. Marxism is ultimately communism, not socialism. This is where Marxism fails. There are socialist governments/economies that are not communistic that work just fine as an end form (such as the democratically socialist Scandinavian countries – including Norway which has consistently one of the highest qualities of life of any industrialized country). However, where communism has been tried, it has failed because it has fundamental flaws regarding human psychology at its core. The last major bastion of communism, China, has resorted to state capitalism although the mechanisms of government are still under the control of the Communist Party.
Shano, I appreciate your opinion and even agree that what a person reads and sometimes even who he associates may have nothing to do with what he actually believes. In Obama’s case, I think since he is president of a world power and our nation we need to consider those things along with what he has done in the past and what he is doing in the present. We need to consider his words and actions.
When I do that, I see a socialist, not a fascist (Not even a corporate fascist though he might take the role for awhile). Why is this important to distinguish? The next election will be very important. If the choices are clear it will be much easier, but if they are muddled, people will either not vote or think their vote really doesn’t matter. If the choice is between apples and apples, why vote. The choice is not!
Americans are going to be told that all the candidates are the same. They are not.
Obama changed or slowed down dramatically on his transformation process when the mid-term election occurred. He probably realized that he could not be re-elected if he continued on the path he was traveling.
Painting Obama with a ‘new brush’ may be a campaign technique or it may be surreptitious on the part of his followers. It could be coincidental. I don’t know. I do know that we need to be very aware that Barack Obama has a different vision for America than what we have had before. For those who agree with Carl Marx and socialism, he may the person for whom to vote. For those of us who believe in capitalism, free enterprise, and the constitution he definitely is not. Check out where the money that came in from the first stimulus package was spent. Check out the people in his administration. Do not take other people’s word for this.
There is nothing socialist about Obama that I can see. Please enumerate his socialist acts.
Obama promised us more war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He delivered. He also delivered unprovoked war in Yemen and Libya and a few other countries.
He promised “only” 50,000 non-combat troops in Iraq – non-combatants to me are medics trained for the no longer existing battlefield injuries and chaplains, mostly Christian in a mostly Muslim country. The troops leaving Iraq are being deployed to other wars.
He promised health care for all but gave a huge bonus to all the insurance companies by requiring everyone to buy from them.
The “stimulus” went to banks and other financial institutions which caused the financial disaster and which held onto the money except for the huge bonuses they gave.
The payroll tax deduction will have a negative impact on the people in the long run b/c their SS benefits are based on the amount of tax they pay now.
He kept all the Bush repressive measures and extended them: PATRIOT Act; indefinite detention; tax cuts for the rich; directed assassinations, including US citizens. The list goes on…. and on…. and on.
One more worth mentioning: no one guilty of war crimes or financial fraud has even been charged with a crime b/c the justice department must join him “looking forward” not back. But the job of the justice department is to look back, investigate and charge criminals. Or is this just his way of eliminating the justice department?
The Bush administration was the worst in terms of oppression and war crimes and the Obama administration has managed to be worse.
Don’t vote for any of these corrupt politicians. Break free. Vote for an independent. A vote for a lesser evil still results in an evil. To paraphrase a wise person: if you want a change, do something different.
Curious & rafflaw,
Adam Serwer is a reporter. Greenwald is a lawyer who has been a constitutional and civil rights litigator.
*****
Mike S.,
“This individual you talk of is nothing more than a con man who is drooling to get young peoples retirement savings into the stock market.”
You’re right. The wizards of Wall Street can’t wait to get their hands on the retirement savings of the young–as well as old people’s money. They’re sniffing around for all the cash they can find. Wouldn’t all the payroll deductions that would go to Social Security be a bonanza for them?
“But there is an individual that can be believed, whether one agrees in theory with said beliefs or not. And has furthermore proposed a system where those on social security that need it, ie old people, will have it, while young people would be encouraged in another direction.”
Nate,
I was young once. Orphaned, worked my way through college. I had relatively low-paying jobs until I was 38. Even had to declare bankruptcy in my 20’s. I’ve always been a pretty smart guy, but back then the money was so tight that I had nothing to save. When a family came along for some years it was even tighter, with me working two jobs and my wife working as a full-time executive. Early on if a child became sick and we had to spend $70 for antibiotics, some bill didn’t get paid. My family lived from paycheck to paycheck and we couldn’t build up any savings. We also were quite thrifty in our lifestyle and luckily didn’t use credit cards. It wasn’t until my 50’s that life became relatively comfortable.
My experience is a fairly common one and really not much different from yours just starting out. Social Security and Medicare have literally saved my life and those of millions of others. This individual you talk of is nothing more than a con man who is drooling to get young peoples retirement savings into the stock market. It’s a game to grab your money and what looks good to you at this age will sour as you grow older. As to the stock market, it is little more than a casino, except that certain of the biggest players have the odds purposely skewed in their favor. The plan this man suggests gives you worse odds than if you went to Vegas and at least in Vegas the game is not rigged to benefit certain players, everyone loses.
Curious,
That Mother Jones article is interesting. but the bill is still bad. Even if the author is right.
puzzling,
No one has suggested that things are not still tough out there, but the facts of the job creation that has occured is not in dispute. At least not in the figures released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Does that mean that people are not still hurting, no. But what it does mean is that things have improved. I am sorry if the facts don’t fit with your vision of the economy, but life is a bitch sometimes. The economy has improved, but it will not continue to improve if austerity is the chosen path. Europe is a good example why we should not follow the path of austerity.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/defense-bill-passed-so-what-does-it-do-ndaa
Adam Sewar of Mother Jones thinks the NYT and Greenwald are wrong.
Here is Adam Serwer’s view.
motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/defense-bill-passed-so-what-does-it-do-ndaa
I am TOTALLY confused. DeMint voted against the bill, along with Durbin. Feinstein and Boxer voted for it. Sen. Rand voted against it as did Franken. Something was added at the last minute. I’m not a lawyer and I can’t determine who has the facts. The whole thing stinks and the worst of it is that neither the press, the Congress, nor the President is capable of giving us a straight answer in which I have confidence.
Mr. Spindell,
If the two parties were a cohesive unit so that one could generally take at face value what is said, the better odds would be with the Democrats.
That is not the case.
What is said cannot be believed, that’s why we’re having this conversation at the 11th hour.
But there is an individual that can be believed, whether one agrees in theory with said beliefs or not. And has furthermore proposed a system where those on social security that need it, ie old people, will have it, while young people would be encouraged in another direction.
If we still believe Obama and the Dems after today, we deserve them.
50 Economic Numbers About The US That Are “Almost Too Crazy To Believe”
According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, 46 percent of all American workers have less than $10,000 saved for retirement, and 29 percent of all American workers have less than $1,000 saved for retirement.
Rafflaw wrote:
Government figures create an appearance of declining unemployment by changing the denominator used in the calculation, month after month after month. Since 2007 the government claims that the “labor force” has fallen from 62.7% of the population to 58.5% of the population. That’s millions of people who are no longer in the work force. Where did they go?
Using an equivalent denominator to pre-recession levels, today’s unemployment rate is now over 11%.
And that’s not counting those who are underemployed, or working part-time and want full time work. Include those, and the figure is closer to 20%. Nate is correct.
Government unemployment figures are fraudulent. Only public sector workers have been insulated from this reality.
Nate,
You are right to be sceptical but here’s the difference. The Republicans say they want to get rid of SS and MA, the Democrats say they don’t. With the R’s it’s a sure thing with the D’s it isn’t. Where are the better odds?
Nate,
Those aren’t my figures. You can bury your head in the sand if you want. If you think I am a true believer, you don’t visit this site enough.
rafflaw: if I had a 401 K, I would see if I could divest from the stock market. 2012 is going to be a tenuous year, imho. Lots of uncertainty in all markets and huge problems in the global economy. ymmv.
Nate has valid experiences in this recession. Some of the figures they use to predict inflation or unemployment are skewed. Obama could have handled the Wall Street bankers differently. Not that any other solution would have been effective in a few years. These problems have been 30 or 40 years in the making. I am not even all that sure they can be solved at this point besides muddling through like Japan with their ‘lost decades’.
Raf,
I don’t believe you.
I’ll believe what my eyes show me and what my experiences inform me as I search for the truth.
Until all this “improvement” affects me and the people I love, it don’t mean shit to me.
Glad to see a true believer. With all due disrespect.