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 Americansā 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 ā1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.ā
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 personās 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 ācovered personsā for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
We all know it is so much better to let Multinational Corporations run our government and all our government agencies. They are, after all, trying to make a profit!
Oops, Sorry about the typo that goofed up the quote.
<blockquoteThere is nothing socialist about Obama that I can see. Please enumerate his socialist acts.
His entire agenda is socialistic. His efforts toward a redistribution of wealth by increasing entitlements and taxing the rich is socialistic. He has been slowed on this by the election in 2010 and the house was no longer controlled by Democrats, but he continues to push this agenda. His takeover of GM in 2009 is an example. With each government bail-out came more government control in both industry and banking. Most people see the huge health care package as government control of what was once a private industry. This is socialism. Shano is partly right when he says we have been on the road to socialism for some time, but he is wrong when he says that it makes no difference which party is in control. It does make some difference and it makes a big difference if one party controls all three branches of government or if they do not.
You are right-on about much of what you say about Obama, but I really do see him as a socialist and I have lived long enough to know that private enterprise is much better than government control. Someone here said that we should have social security if we are a compassionate people. If Social Security is to be a welfare program then he is right. If it is a retirement fund, he is wrong. The two should be separate and government should not be allowed to take one person’s retirement fund and use the capital for 30 yrs and return it without paying the person the dividends it has earned, but rather give it to those who are in need of welfare.There are ways to accomplish both of these goals, but not if career politicians are in charge of the money and not the way the funds have been used and abused that we currently have.
Personally, I think we need term-limits and laws that require those who legislate to live by the laws they enact.
it’s just SO ironic that the people most participating in the socialism here are the ones so desperately fighting anyone saying that because they’re sold on the lie that they’re “free” or “democratic” or whatever word suits their fancy. they think they’re SO smart while they show up for work like they’re supposed to like good worker bees that are CONVINCED that there’s some amount where they transcend that. then they pay an illegal unconstitutional tax every time they’re issued a paycheck (for literally nothing in return). AND they FREAK OUT on anyone who dares to cross their uninformed citizen line with mere words in this case SOCIALISM. whoever walked them into that line (by the way) is an evil genius. the national defense authorization act is just another branch in that tree to join Eugenics, financial tyranny, & the all-purpose scientific rationale. YES this is semantics in a sense BUT that’s what this game is ALL about. it’s word games on steroids & language is the best way to fool a mass majority.
also what do you think taxes are ??? that’s SOCIALISM. i don’t get why people FREAK OUT over that word. those taxes would be fine if they did anything but pay of the interest on our country’s loan from the federal reserve but there’s not ONE law that states you have to pay federal “income” taxes on your wages. “income” is legally defined as CORPORATE profits & gains…..that tax you “think” you’ll go to jail for not paying is COMPLETELY voluntary…people are so brain-washed that they either: pipe in with some 16th Ammendment reference that has NOTHING to do with what they’ve been trained to FALSELY think it does…or they pipe in with the SAME Wesley Snipes crap not knowing the details of that case (which includes defrauding the government in writing a BIG no-no not to mention production company with CORPORATE structure)…or they pipe in with attacking the messenger like someone defending their master who’s whipping them on their plantation. the Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that the government dipping their hands in your “private property” is a totalitarian act. if that isn’t socialism i don’t know what is. do you have to give all 100% of everything so 40-50% does not count or something ??? & why is that relevant to this discussion….if you’re being lied to about that what else do you think is part of the lie ??? what are the other parts of that CONTROL ???
“The passive reaction of the brainwashed, mind-controlled, dumbed-down, fluouridated American public provides insight into the world of fascist nazi Germany circa 1936”
Gillian,
I know its easy to blame the victims for the mess we are in, but the fact is that billions have been spent to literally convince people to vote against their own self interest. Many people have been brainwashed and so we have this tragic state of affairs. However, your comparison to Germany in 1936 is apt.
Jlue, and who is this saviour of capitalism, free enterprise and the constitution? Because we have not had any of those things for a decade or so now. The GOP is worse than Obama on all these issues, so our choice is between the lesser of two evils yet again. The GOP mouth nice platitudes about ‘free markets’ and ‘individualism’ but when they get in power all they do is give even more wealth to the Multinationals that wreck our economy and create even more inequality. Everyone of them except for Buddy Roemer, and he cannot get any air time or consideration. Too bad Ron Paul is so wacky on womens issues, because it makes him look like a hypocrite.
I’ve been investing since the early ’80’s and there is no way I would like to see Social Security go into this stock market as it is currently. The lack of regulation in the shadow banking system has jeopardized all of us around the world. The development of high speed trading with no change in the regulatory infrastructure rigs the market in favor of the big guys who run these systems.
I learned investing from an old fashioned broker and none of the old rules apply to this market whatsoever. I exited the market in 2007 and saved my principal, but have been on the sidelines ever since because I truly think the game is rigged now.
It also depends on things that are out of the control of most people. Sure, over time the market has a good return, but it depends on WHEN you invest your money and WHEN you need to take it out. Some people would be very unlucky to start investing at a market high and then need to take money out during a recession. Those people would lose their retirement.
Well, I’m certainly pleased to see your post on this atrocious deconstruction of everything that America represents. The passive reaction of the brainwashed, mind-controlled, dumbed-down, fluouridated American public provides insight into the world of fascist nazi Germany circa 1936.
What a travesty!
“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!”
Jlue,
The “big picture” is that most Americans no longer have the disposable income to finance their retirement through savings, if in fact they ever did. Yes, Social Security is a forced savings plan, but unless you’re willing to see the untimely deaths and suicides of formerly productive working people as they retire, or end the notion of retirement for the 99% entirely, SS is the best option. It really is a question of how much do we care for our community and our fellow Americans?