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).
SM,
I posted the text of the pledge in my earlier reply. There is no commitment to appoint pro-life judges in it.
AY,
Intelligence has nothing to do with the power grab. Bush and Cheney understood what they were doing.
http://www.dailypaul.com/168378/dr-ron-paul-signs-susan-b-anthony-list-pro-life-pledge-romney-cain-johnson-refuse
Everyone who values democracy needs to read this.
SM,
Paul is wrong on abortion, we agree on that. State governments (and the federal government) do not own women’s bodies. Obama’s HHS recently overruling the FDA on Plan B contraceptive access is a real-world strike against choice as well that will impact thousands of women every year.
I did see the anti-abortion pledge that Paul signed, but it does not introduce a litmus test for judges. It is a commitment “to nominate to the U.S. federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution.”
AN,
Keep the flu right there…. Get better and chat later… Thanks…
I say Obama is worse than the rest because he is in my opinion better educated a former constitutional law professor and should know better. But he had proved in my opinion in the last 7 months to be more deceitful that Cheney or Rove….
AY,
I’m a quarter of the way through Glenn Greenwald’s new book. I highly recommend it…
A bad case of the flu…. and it’s time to get some sleep. I’m barely functioning.
Night, all.
Bad times… May we see some positive changes…
Like voting for McCain would have been better. He sponsored the bill.
anon nurse, It is too limiting to have a litmus test for judges and cabinet members. I guess Paul would have many conservative catholics and christian fundamentalists to choose from. Paul makes some good points on the wars.
Your welcome raff….
AN,
That’s what I have said before. If our rights are taken away or even chipped away slowly what rights will we really have. What will the implications of the remaining rule of law mean anyway…. But that is just me… Thinking about the big picture rather than an individual brush stroke on the canvas…
Thanks AY!
Blouise, I’ve done that myself. A repub operative I know was telling me some many years ago who his primary picks were and they were all dems! I was shocked, shocked, I tells ya’, and he patiently explained that it was all part of the game, everybody does it. LOL, I actually never considered such a thing, it was such a purely ideological (and cynical) move. I decided I was way too straight-laced and needed to start voting in ways that mattered strategically and were way more fun. 🙂
Good catch Swarthmore. Paul only looks reasonable when compared to the maniacs running for President on the Republican ticket.
I wouldn’t want to see an anti-abortion judge but, from my vantage point, given where we’re headed, abortion-rights are the least of our worries… We need to be focusing on the rule of law, which is nearly non-existent for many, and civil rights, which are increasingly under siege.
puzzling, Paul signed a pledge that he would only appoint anti-abortion judges. I don’t know the professor’s position on abortion but that pledge is very limiting.
The republican candidates were asked to name their favorite Supreme Court justice in tonight’s debate. Santorum was first and named Clarence Thomas.
Only Paul was unwilling to endorse any of the nine, calling them “all good, and all bad” on fundamental issues of liberty. As folks here know, Paul has previously mentioned Turley for the court.
your