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).
raff,
You opinion is always welcome and thoughtful….
rafflaw, The really scary thing is that the power has been increased for a possible President Gingrich. Just listening to him in the debate….
We need Instant Runoff Voting instituted in ALL federal elections immediately to make third party candidates a viable decision now. Enough with this strategic voting BS! Let’s get people into every office that care about the things the American people care about!
I am late to the party on this one, but I couldn’t resist making a comment. It is time to take our objections to Obama directly with an OWHS movement. Occupy the White House. Or if you prefer, Occupy the Bill of Rights. As was mentioned earlier, it would help to get money out of the election cycle, but this goes deeper. There seems to be a super secret rule for Presidents that makes them want to increase the power of the presidency instead of steadfastly guarding our liberties. The Bush mantra of “be afraid” of the Muslim has been changed to be afraid of everyone, including citizens. Sad day.
Pretty damn sad when the “choice” candidate is the lesser of two evils… At least if somebody is in office “We” don’t trust then at least we know what we have…..
The selling out the of the Constitution is an act of Treason which should be levied against all who supported this bill and the one signing the same……
Blouise, I was watching the debate, and Gingrich called Obama a “Saul Alinsky radical”. I think I will stay out of their primary and let them decide on their candidate.
lotta,
Thinking about taking the cynical move of jumping parties to vote for Paul in the primaries … gotta do something pro-active … unless I get disappeared for thinking cynical thoughts. If that happens I have instructed Tex to send you my Johnny Depp autograph. (It’s a A Nightmare on Elm Street poster from ’84)
SwM,
Yeah, he’s a creepy bigot alright but so are the rest of them so, perhaps voting for him in the primary isn’t such an out-there idea. I’d have to be a republican for awhile … until the next primary for state offices rolls around but, what the hell … it’s an idea I’ll think about.
As we go into marshal law the weakness of the constitution will be proclaimed to be the word God. Then all morality will fall as long as the will of the people.
I know what I’m doing about it.
I’m voting for Ron Paul. Then I’m going to support BuChO trials.
“Or am I wrong?”
Unfortunately, shano, you are not wrong.
In other news, the sky is blue and water is wet.
Bernie Sanders Constitutional Amendment to end corporate personhood and end corporations ability to give money to political campaigns is a good start.
Get Money Out of Politics. That would cut off the power source of the MIC and all others.
Like Mike Appleton I have been at a loss as to what to say about this, but have collected my thoughts, so hear goes. I have been writing about what I see as the return of Feudalism to the US in tandem with the domination by multi-national corporations. It has been my opinion, clearly stated, that to some degree this has already happened, with the only saving grace being the clash of ego’s among this Corporate Elite. From the death of JFK in 1963, through an amazing set of changes that have transformed our rights as citizens this is yet another small link in this chain of circumstance.
Many including myself, mistook Obama as an agent of change. That was the victory of hope over despair. The mythology that we let ourselves buy into, though intellectually we knew better, was that Presidents have great power despite the negative evidence that exists all around us. When people rely on any “hero” to overcome the array of power aligned against the people of this or any other nation they are fooling themselves. The world has never worked that way. Indeed, in historical truth the “Bill of Rights” has for the most part existed only on paper and the government has oppressed those they wished to oppress, without any of the legal niceties. This article I’ve provided the link for gives a possible explanation of why the Obama Candidacy began in his hope for change and has come to this.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/The-Military-and-Those-Str-by-Russ-Baker-111213-640.html
Is the scenario suggested by this writer too far-fetched? I don’t think so.
What would any of us do if elected President, especially someone who cherishes their family. If we are asking for heroics in the face of possible threats by the Military-Industrial Complex, perhaps we should elect someone, with no spouse, no children, no family and who doesn’t fear
death.
We can waste our time bemoaning our fates and finding those to blame, or we can try to discover a way to fight back that is effective. All of us here who have felt this way have spoken out time and again so it isn’t a question of lending a voice. They’ve got too many guns and the will to use them, so that kind of revolution is not going to change one damn thing, save for getting a lot of young people killed. OWS has showed us a glimmer of the way to go, but we’ve got to improve on it. Ghandi found a way to succeed against the intransigent British. MLK copied it with some success. Rather than bemoaning yet another sign of what we’ve known all along, Accept that this is now the reality, what the hell do we do about it?
Obama was selected in advance to be a one term resident…his rhetoric was designed to defuse the anger of the people that Bush and Cheney caused.
It worked…he fooled most of the people including myself.
We now know that Obama is an egregious LIAR.
He isn’t just a liar, he is a traitor.
He knows that if he isn’t re-elected, he will be on easy-street…full pension
for life, free secret-service protection, free medical care, etc.
He sold us out for a few pieces of silver.
anon nurse : “The 13 senators who voted against the bill were … Bernie Sanders (I-Vt …”
What I wouldn’t give for an opportunity to vote for him in 2012.
By this time ia normal election cycle I am usually amused, or outraged or bored; This time I am just despondent,
**
Blouise: “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.”
and Shano: “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?”
______________
Correct and correct. I just don’t think you can be too cynical about how this movie ends.
Rocky Anderson is going to run for POTUS in the newly formed Justice Party.
Sounding better and better to me.
Otteray Scribe:
I completely agree. But perhaps the people should get what they want. The reaction to this law is likely to be a collective yawn.
The MSM including Maddow (last night) was decrying Obama’s failure to veto the bill without explaining that Obama was objecting to a limitation on Presidential discretion regarding the arbitrary targeting of citizens for loss of their rights, not the loss if civil rights. That is outrageous. I am appalled at Maddow and hope she corrects the impression (of Obama as weak, as opposed to wanting dictatorial powers) tonight.
This q&A between Michael Moore and Chris Hedges is relevant to what is happening with this bill and the loss of rights in general. Hedges puts a relevant historical spin on the situation. 8 mins max, and you can stop listening after the first two talking points. Imperial Capitalism takes it’s inevitable toll: