Happy Birthday, Bill [of Rights]: Obama Breaks Promise To Veto Bill Allowing Indefinite Detention of Americans

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).

330 thoughts on “Happy Birthday, Bill [of Rights]: Obama Breaks Promise To Veto Bill Allowing Indefinite Detention of Americans”

  1. I now feel as if I am between the proverbial rock and a hard place. If any of the clowns currently on the “R” side are nominated, we will have to vote for Obama to keep some batshit crazy ideologue out. Unless they have a brokered convention, the Republican rank and file voting in the primaries will never, ever, nominate someone sane.

    A third party candidate would have a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected, but if he or she drew enough votes away from Obama, we may end up with Bush III–or worse.

    Shit!

  2. anon nurse:
    I’ve already fired off an email to my senator, Bill Nelson, to inform him that after many years, I will not support his re-election.

  3. So, to comfort myself, I thought I would come and read some responses from legal minds on this issue. Well, that was a mistake.

    The ‘Occupiers’ called all day on Wednesday, I can verify that the phones were tied up all day at the White House. I managed to get a person, once, they hung up as soon as they found out which issue I was calling about. Or maybe we just got ‘disconnected’.

    We really are a Banana Republic now. I can see any POTUS using this to knock out political competition, to end criticism, to stop movements against our increasingly fascist government. Or am I wrong?

    Shame on Obama. Now he is saying he is going to ‘fix’ it? Clarify the language? Why in the world was this slipped into a budget instead of going through a tedious discussion of the problems associated with the Constitution? It leaves me with more questions than answers…

  4. Blouise,I was thinking about voting for Paul in the republican primary. Started reviewing his record and came across this article in which Jonathan Chait in response to Sullivan’s endorsement calls Paul a “creepy bigot”. Can’t do it.

  5. The government is obviously incapable of building legal cases against those citizens whom they suspect of terrorist activities.

    Grabbing suspects off the street and “disappearing” them has long been a tactic used by governments around the world.

    We are now, officially, one of those governments.

    And, as history has shown us over and over again, you can bet that “suspected terrorism” will gradually evolve into “suspected anything” and “disappeared” citizens will become commonplace.

  6. The 13 senators who voted against the bill were Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.).

  7. Mike A says, “I have been working on something to say about this for the past two weeks, but my efforts to write temperately keep colliding with my outrage.”

    I know exactly what you mean.

  8. Yeah, so Ron Paul is good on this issue, but like many a libertarian looks a lot worse on social issues . . .

    So what’s worse, a guy who says some things that sound good, some that sound bad, and a system that makes implementing anything a crap shoot? Or a guy that says just about everything that sounds good, but proves he didn’t mean it, and either advances or doesn’t stand in the way of everything bad?

    I’ll take the one who hasn’t proven himself a liar, a rogue or spineless yet.

  9. Dredd, the language of the bill does not prohibit the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens. It simply does not make it mandatory. But what’s your point? The rights we are talking about are “unalienable.” They are not dependent upon citizenship.

  10. I have been working on something to say about this for the past two weeks, but my efforts to write temperately keep colliding with my outrage.

  11. Allahu Akbar. Blessed be the Prophet. Greater is Osama bin Laden than the mightiest of all Arab Warriors. Greater is Osama bin Laden than the mightiest of all Muslim Warriors. Destroyed is the land of the Free and the home of the Brave. Allahu Akbar.

  12. Dgibella 1, December 15, 2011 at 4:39 pm

    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.
    ========================
    For you and humpy and a834346: Tyranny For Fifth Graders

Comments are closed.