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).
Does the bill allow indefinite detention of American citizens or does it not? The language would seem to say NOT. I’m not sure what everyone is on about.
http://www.tgdaily.com/security-features/60237-anonymous-targets-indefinite-detention-bill
Excerpt:
Cyber activists linked to the Anonymous collective are mobilizing to oppose legislation that would allow the military to indefinitely detain US citizens suspected of terrorist activity on American soil.
Known as NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) FY 2012, the legislation also permits the Pentagon to transfer suspected terrorists – even though they are US citizens – to Guantánamo Bay.
Anonymous targets indefinite detention billIn response to the pending legislation, Anonymous has doxed Robert J. Portman, a Republican senator from the state of Ohio who supports the controversial Act.
“He made himself a target as an advocate of the NDAA,” the group wrote in an online communiqué.
“We are truly disturbed by the ludicrous $272,853 he received from special interest groups supporting the NDAA bill that authorizes the indefinite detention of [American] citizens on US soil. Robert J. Portman, we plan to make an example of you.”
The Act, which President Barack Obama now supports, has come under heavy fire from both Democrats and Republicans, as well as human rights activists.
“It’s something so radical that it would have been considered crazy had it been pushed by the Bush administration,” Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch told The Guardian.
“It establishes precisely the kind of system that the United States has consistently urged other countries not to adopt. At a time when the United States is urging Egypt, for example, to scrap its emergency law and military courts, this is not consistent.”
However, Senator Lindsey Graham believes the Act is necessary, simply because terrorism suspects should not be treated the same as regular criminals.
“We’re facing an enemy, not a common criminal organization, who will do anything and everything possible to destroy our way of life,” said Graham.
(end of excerpt)
Rand Paul Slams McCain about Snatch Squads and Indefinite Detention for Americans
Obama Admin Pushed for Indefinite Detention Provision
Written by Raven Clabough
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10170-obama-admin-pushed-for-indefinite-detention-
Excerpt:
Amidst all of the controversy surrounding the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Obama administration attempted to paint itself as an oppositional force against the bill, threatening to veto it if it passed. Now, however, Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich., left), co-author of the bill, says that the administration in fact heavily lobbied to have removed from the bill’s language that would have protected American citizens from some of the bill’s provisions, such as indefinite detention without trial.
According to Levin, who is Chairman of the Armed Services Committee: “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.”
Levin continued: “It was the administration that asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee … we removed it at the request of the administration. It was the administration which asked us to remove the very language the absence of which is now objected to.”
The provision in question is outlined in Section 1031 of the NDAA, which in essence defines the whole world including the United States as a “battlefield” in the war against terrorism.
Obama breaks every Promise he made during his campaign, what is so unusual now?
You people are just rabid and hungry for Obama’s blood, or any member of the government for that matter. Too bad you’re wrong, just as the lawyer here on the board spelled out for you. Learn to research your information better, just relying on some random schmucks blog to inform you, whether this one, or Alex Jones, or whoever you think is your information-hero, EVERYONE HAS AN AGENDA. That said, this President could literally walk on water and there would still be people calling him worthless. He is far from perfect, but he is busting his #$$ every single day, and putting his life on the line while doing it. Food for thought.
oh wow
The US Supreme Court has ruled in a line of cases ending most recently with Boumediene that the legal rights of US Citizens include not being arrested without cause and held indefinitely without charge.
In fact, that case held that noncitizens being held outside of the country but in a place of de factor American control (Guantanamo) still have some due process rights.
This is not killing the bill of rights.
I am a lawyer.
The only thing that I can think of is that Obama wanted the words re: American citizens to be thrown in there in order to increase the chances of the law being struck down as constitutional. If that’s the case, then it could actually be a shrewd move, because it would strike down the entire law, and he would be able to take away a GOP arg that Obama hates the US.
I don’t know if that’s the case of course, but it’s a thought.
As disappointed as I am in Obama, I’m even more disappointed in all of us. We elect him thinking that HE would take care of everything, but his election was just the start. We basically stopped running as soon as the gun went off, and stopped giving him the support and the mandate that he needed to get his way in Congress.
Whether it’s writing letters to Representatives, occupying something, spending extra to purchase goods, or even really boning up on political topics and discussing them with neighbors and family members, we have allowed way too many of our countrymen to be duped by horribly untrue “facts” and opinions.
We’re all in this together, for better or worse. We HAVE to start acting like it.
Another frustrating thing is to hear/read the members of the press who are not lawyers pontificating on the constitutionality of this law. Yesterday it was some idiot on the radio without a law degree just spouting crap. I thought to myself “which nowhere publication does he work for?” only to find out he’s a reporter for Time Magazine… I have to figure out a way to have the car radio switch off when theses non-lawyer idiots get going or I may drive off the road. NBC’s “chief legal correspondent” doesn’t have a law degree. You’d think in today’s awful job market the media would be able to hire lawyers to analyze legal issues.
Alex Jones was right all along. Everyone who thought he was a conspiracy nut job is eating their words right now. His film “The Obama Deception” is pure prophesy come true. Go back and watch it. It will shock you.
And if you still believe in the Left/Right political paradigm, it will set you straight.
Welcome to 1984. Let’s hope we can all figure out a sane way out of this mess before they start imprisoning patriots.
http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/199677-herman-cain-id-want-to-be-defense-secretary
bozzy: They’re too busy frothing themselves up into a mindless rage to notice things like facts.
“According to the Pew Research report, two-thirds (67 percent) of registered voters nationwide say “most members of Congress” should be voted out of office in 2012, while only 20 percent want most members reelected. This desire to fire all incumbents marks a record level of discontent since the Pew Center started asking the question 18 years ago, far exceeding previous highs of 57 percent in 2010 and 56 percent in 1994.” – Huffington Post
Old news to many, I’m guessing…
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/13/cheney_urges_a_quick_air_strike_against_iran/