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).
The problem with 99.99 per cent of all legislators….is that they do not read a damn thing except for the talking points memo that they are provided of what the bills intent is….How do I know that? I worked in mire….as well have been associated with it for a long, long time…..Some of these bills are 500 pages….and if you are passing 50 new laws or codifications a day….how long would it take you before you quit reading too…..
To those trying to claim that this bill does apply to citizens, and/or thereby implying that it is nothing to worry about:
1) When it says it does not affect EXISTING laws…what ARE those existing laws? The DHS already has the ability to wiretap and surveil, and greatly expanded powers of all sorts. The law exists that makes it lawful to assassinate enemies of the state, including US citizens, in or out of country. Before saying everyone is being “fools” to be concerned about this, check up on what existing laws it does not (need to) affect.
2) If it is so not-to-worry about, why is not a single member of Congress or the President addressing that and calming the public’s fears, and explaining what it DOES do? Riddle me that, if you please. I received a mass email from Diane Feinstein who, as a member of Congress seems like she should have some info on this, saying that all the amendments that would have afforded protection to US citizens and lawful residents were DEFEATED. Was she lying? Why would she lie about something like that?
Consider these points, before you call everyone else fools, please. It’s quite rude.
“Democracy is a process by which the people are free to choose the man who will get the blame.
Laurence J. Peter (1919 – 1988)”
Well Thankss!
http://www.drupalnetworks.com/
Ok… questions…
1. Is the military going to enter EVERY home eventually and search every square inch of these homes or do they need substantial evidence that says that the people living in certain houses are terrorists?
2. What must a member of the military find in one’s house to deem the occupants terrorists?
3. Is the military just going to take one look at someone and say “yup, terrorist” and ship them away without a reason?
4. Doesn’t the first part of congress say that if the government does this, we have the power to overthrow our government and start a new one?
Excerpt from:
The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers fromthe consent of the governed, –
***************************************************************************************
That whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles
and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their Safety and Happiness.
***************************************************************************************
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that
Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient
causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more
disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by
abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of
abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to
reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to
throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
security
http://angrymanspeaks.wordpress.com/
Rocky Anderson would be much better than Paul or Obama. I am going to see how the election takes shape. There could be a few dark horses on each side. Anything can happen, haha, as we see with Obama signing on to this travesty of a piece of legislation. they are all backpedalling now. In hindsight, no one is going to want this on their record, just like the Iraq war.
Blouise
1, December 15, 2011 at 11:30 pm
“These elected officials were given the privilege of governing a free people but they all turned out to be cowards looking, like any criminal does, for the shortcut, the easy path outside the rule of law. They’ve formed their own governing mafia and are trying their damnedest to convince us we are safer under their leadership than we are under the umbrella of the Constitution. They’re like the parasites on Wall Street, selling us worthless bundles of chopped up freedoms no longer backed by the Constitution and thus of no real value.
It’s a bubble and it’s going to burst.”
Worth repeating, Blouise, well done.
Thanks Swarthmore. I thought I remembered that correctly.
obama is a p*ssy
Interesting link Swarthmore. Didn’t Paul also denounce evolution recently?
These elected officials were given the privilege of governing a free people but they all turned out to be cowards looking, like any criminal does, for the shortcut, the easy path outside the rule of law. They’ve formed their own governing mafia and are trying their damnedest to convince us we are safer under their leadership than we are under the umbrella of the Constitution. They’re like the parasites on Wall Street, selling us worthless bundles of chopped up freedoms no longer backed by the Constitution and thus of no real value.
It’s a bubble and it’s going to burst.
http://minnesotaindependent.com/82941/bachmann-pawlenty-romney-susan-b-anthony-list-abortion-pledge
SM,
I would normally let your comment pass, but in this case want to be clear the pledge Paul signed does NOT require a litmus test or appointment of known pro-life court appointees. There is no reason to think that Paul’s public endorsement of Turley has changed as you imply.
The pledge is five sentences long, here.
puzzling, It says pro-life appointees. It also says the goal is to get rid of planned parenthood. I hope Paul wins the republican nomination but he won’t.
Gene,
I am seething….and I feel ya…. This is unmitigated crap….
Raff,
A dishonest person with power is still more dangerous than a bullet…I’ll give you Cheney and power. I am beginning to think Shrub did not have a clue as to what power he had….. He was a puppet of the powers that were….but still responsible for what he did while there though…
I’m still too angry to address this fascism in depth.
I think Ron Paul is our last chance?