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).
rafflaw, It is tough but their goal is to chip enough of us so that the repubs win. Mike S, I usually like what Jonathan Chait has to say.
Hey SM,
I don’t believe they really care who we elect. How much farther right can Obama go? What could a Republican do that Obama isn’t willing to do?
The major Republican candidates and Obama are all being paid by a combination of the same banks. Well it would be more accurate to say that they are all paid by “The Bank”. Because all of these banks are owned by people who are in association by virtue of being members of the exclusive 1% club. They act in accord. Goldman-Sachs, BOA, Morgan-Stanley, etc.
Obama has through a series of actions and failures to act managed to take most of the rights recognized by the Constitution and made others moot.
No; I’m sorry. This has gone too far. Obama has gone too far.
I would also point out the terrible irony that our first black President should turn out to be a betrayer of the American people. If I were black; after the struggle my race has gone through to get here; after the dream that a black man could be elected President one day; after I have been allowed to believe that the dream has come true; only to have those dreams dashed upon the rocks when I found that my president had done everything but repeal the Emancipation Proclamation and repeal the 13th amendment. because the result of his actions if left to continue is abject slavery to the 1% for all of the 99%.
These things I see not from some insane desire to find conspiracies everywhere; but from my observations, experiences, and from my familiaity with history.
Don’t worry about who to elect. Worry about stopping both parties i.e. the whole political system from reducing us to serfs and beggers.
I love your comments and the links you so often provide. Talk with you later
Well said Mike. For anyone to think that there is a viable alternative to Obama is fooling themselves. To say he is a racist is just buying in to the Fox News crap that is spewed on a daily basis.
That being said, it is becoming harder to hold my nose and vote for him. This latest omnibus bill cuts pell grants and heating assistance, but the military budget gets a raise. When will Congress and Obama grow a set and understand that the austerity that the Right is calling for is not only dangerous and flawed, it is purposeful in its intent to further tank an economy that is showing some modest improvement?
Me; it did forme
“Obama is also a huge racist.”
Jill,
Could you elaborate on this statement, perhaps providing some instances indicating his racism?”
Jill’s answer:
“But Obama is also a racist. So basically we come down to Democrats saying, I will vote for a racist as long as he’s a Democrat.”
Jill,
First of all stating Obama is a racist, in the absence of examples, does not
make it so. Prove the statement first with examples and facts. Secondly, your implication that I am a cult like individual, who would vote for a racist just because he’s a Democrat is offensive, especially in light of your absence of proof that he is. I know you have expressed your opposition to Obama since he began his Presidential run and wrote many a comment detailing your opposition to it here. Have I ever implied that you were a racist in your virulent opposition to Obama? I have not and wouldn’t. Why then, when you are quite aware that I’ve said I will hold my nose and vote for Obama, do you feel justified in stating that I or anyone else here, would vote for a racist as long as they were a Democrat?
Let’s get down to brass tacks though and ignore for the moment your unjustified attacks on me and others. I and many others have solid personal reasons for voting for Obama over anyone so far suggested. If I was to lose my social security/medicare benefits, or have them substantially reduced, I would be reduced to poverty. That’s a highly personal reason for me and many, many other Americans. This would also be true for millions of Americans, if there were no longer unemployment insurance, public assistance and food stamps. Many more women would be forced to have and raise unwanted children. Birth Control and birth control information would become unavailable. Women’s economic inequality would increase. Those without adequate health insurance would skyrocket. Corporate Feudalism would become the norm and the 1% would get richer. Homosexuals would again find their rights stripped and be subject to legal prosecution. People of color would find even more of themselves locked up by the Prison/DEA/LEO Complex. Every Republican candidate thus far would bring that about, especially because his/her negative coattails would ensure a compliant congress and we already have a compliant SCOTUS.
That only represents my view of the situation and I can completely understand people whose consciences dictate otherwise. Give me a viable out and I’ll join with them. However, don’t give me another Ralph Nader tilting at windmills. Don Quixote was a great book, written by a man of conscience, but Cervantes recognized the ultimate ineffectiveness of his hero. Getting 3% of the vote and electing one of the present field of Republicans may be soul satisfying, but it would also make a bad situation worse.
While thinking about the uprising of 1215, it occurs to me the OWS protests are our modern equivalent. That is, no doubt, one reason the oligarchs and banksters have leveraged their bought and paid for mayors and politicians to unleash the full fury of a militarized police on them. Some of these hyper-militarized police departments behave in a manner more reminiscent of the Brownshirts (Sturmabteilung, or SA) than the kindly Bobby on the beat.
Mike S.,
Why are you looking for someone to make things better? Why not do that yourself by joining with your fellow citizens to resist a corrupt system. True, we have little chance of success but the outcome is assured if you won’t even try. And have you really looked at other candidates? Jill Stein, no relation is running. You may think you can’t vote for her, but you could.
If you vote for Obama than you are greenlighting everything he does. Is that what you stand for? Suppose you think he’s the LOTE. Well, every power you just gave him, you just gave to the next monster. The cycle of monsters in office must end. It ends when people understand they do have real choices and exercise them. This isn’t a guarantee of success, it’s saying I will not bring evil into the world.
“The gist is that Paul is tied in deep and extensive ways to neo-Confederates, and somewhat less tightly to the right-wing militia movement. His newsletter, which he wrote and edited for years, was a constant organ of vile racism and homophobia. This is not just picking out a phrase here and there. Fear and hatred of blacks and gays, along with a somewhat less pronounced paranoia about Jewish dual loyalty, are fundamental elements of his thinking. The most comparable figure to Paul is Pat Buchanan, the main differences being that Paul emphasizes economic issues more, and has more dogmatically pro-market views.”
SwM,
Thank you for that link. Ron Paul has gained credence with some dissatisfied with Obama’s policies because of his opposition to the wars and because he is purportedly a “civil libertarian”. I would submit that you cannot be a civil libertarian if you are anti-choice, since that hits at one of the most personal decisions that can be made by a woman. From that position one can infer that if his “religious conscience” takes precedence over his civil libertarian ideals, he is capable of much more invasive sallies against freedom. Perhaps persecution of homosexuality can also be justified by his conscience.
While Pat Buchanan is a worthwhile comparison to Paul, I also find similarities to Senator Prescott Bush, scion of the Bush Crime Family.
P. Bush hated the New Deal reforms so much he tried to organize a military coup to replace FDR. He also helped finance the rise of the NAZI Party in Germany and was against our siding with the Brits in WWII. He of course strongly believed that government should not interfere with business.
Another comparison from our past is Eugene McCarthy. In 1968 anti-war people anxious to be rid of LBJ supported him and helped oust LBJ from running again. Many didn’t realize that though a Democrat, McCarthy was rather Conservative politically, an intellectual snob, had disdain for the common folk and was a mediocre campaigner. They looked only at his opposition to the Viet Nam war. With RFK dead and Johnson out, Hubert Humphrey got the nomination. HHH had a long, courageous history as a staunch liberal and supporter of Civil Rights, when that support was unpopular by a public figure. Many in the anti-war movement refused to vote and HHH lost the Presidency, but not by much. Nixon came in and escalated the war far beyond the destruction that had already been wreaked. The “Southern Strategy” that brought RMN to power led him to
halt the progress of the Civil Rights Movement as a payoff to his supporters.
It brings to mind two old, but very true cliches:
“Be careful what you wish for……….you might get it.
“Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.
I understand and feel the anger at Obama, but there is no-one on the horizon to make things better and all on the horizon will make things worse.
Yes, a principled intention would be not to vote for him, that’s why Humphrey lost to Nixon.
To use another cliche, that my Father constantly laid on me and that has also proven in my experience to be true:
“The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions”.
No one argues that Ron Paul is a racist. That’s a real reason not to vote for him and I would not vote for him. But Obama is also a racist. So basically we come down to Democrats saying, I will vote for a racist as long as he’s a Democrat.
This idea must stop. There is wrong and right. These are independent of political party. If you are against racism, be against it even when it is in the actions of a Democratic president. You cannot confront what is happening in this nation by lying to yourself about “your” candidate and “your” party. You either have a consistent ethical standard or you are part of what allows racism and other horrors to occur in our nation.
Other than this being a type of cult, I find it difficult to understand why people keep defending the indefensible. This vote was taken by Democrats and Republicans alike. It is president Obama, a Democrat, who wanted the protections of American citizens stripped from the bill. It is president Obama who feels he may declare anyone a terrorist and have them killed. Hell, he’s already killed people, including a 16 year old boy. This cannot be O.K. with people.
The financial bill is being stripped of language taxing the most wealthy Americans and this is done by Democrats and Republicans alike. WAKE UP. They are playing for the same team. To keep ignoring evidence is dangerous.
“Yet here we sit, more than three years after Obama’s win, and too many people are pulling me aside in private to ask why his standing in the African-American community has softened since his Inauguration. They also question whether the reduced excitement among young and new voters — with that lack of enthusiasm from African-Americans — might hinder Obama’s 2012 campaign.”
http://www.thegrio.com/politics/revenge-of-the-clintonites-black-democrats-cling-to-the-first-black-president.php
Newt Gingrich: Abolish Liberal, ‘Anti-American’ Courts
“Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich went off on the American judicial system during Thursday night’s GOP debate, saying courts have become “grotesquely dictatorial, far too powerful and … frankly arrogant in their misreading of the American people.”
Gingrich has called for the abolition of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which is despised by conservatives for many of its liberal rulings.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/15/2012-newt-gingrich-debate_n_1152705.html
I have a leather-bound copy of the Magna Carta on my bookshelf. Those twits in DC need to remember what can happen to any ruling class when the peasants finally wake up to the fact they do indeed have some power. It happened in 1215 and several similar events have happened since. King John got off light compared to Nicolae Ceaușescu and Benito Mussolini.
I see that Julian Assange is being allowed to appeal his extradition order. One has to wonder if the current events in Congress and White House has anything to do with influencing the Brits to rethink this extradition matter. After all they DID write the Magna Carta.
Having slept all night, a usually sufficient time for me to quell even the greatest of outrages, I find that I am still too angry to address this fascism in depth. So in the alternative, just imagine a copious sting of profanity laden invective directed at both Congress and the President. It starts with “You traitorous un-American unconstitutional fascist douche bags . . .” and goes on from there. After the anger dies down and the depression sets in, I’m sure I’ll have more to say on this matter.
“Obama is also a huge racist.”
Jill,
Could you elaborate on this statement, perhaps providing some instances indicating his racism. There are enough critiques of Obama to go around. Calling him a racist, if there is no proof, only diminishes the issue of racism.
angrymanspeaks:
From your blog and your piece:
“Try Not to Think of a Newt by David Swanson Reposted from “War is a crime.org””
Mr Swanson gives good advice with whats going on and the anger we feel toward these political hacks and keeps us in check.
“Get serious. Get independent. Get principled. And stay nonviolent toward everything in the world except your television.”
Yes I agree. I think we are past working witin the system. It has proven to be useless ne detrimental to our cause and our rights. “Occupy” sort of takes on a scary, beautiful new meaning; doesn’t it?
It did for ma at least.
Obama is also a huge racist. So why would you vote for one racist but not another one?
As I said before, So, the disbelief in evolution and racism disqualifies voting for a candidate but the killing of American citizens and the indefinite detention of other humans beings is O.K.? You can add racism to Obama’s long list of atrocities. So are you saying that those qualities are O.K. to vote for in a Democratic candidate but wrong to vote for in a Republican candidate?
Wouldn’t any of these things rationally be a reason not to vote for a candidate?
I strongly suggest quit worrying about who to vote for-vote third party. Then put your shoulder into the hard work of trying to undo the immediate mess we find ourselves in.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/12/news-bulletin-ron-paul-is-a-huge-racist.html
So, the disbelief in evolution and racism disqualifies voting for a candidate but the killing of American citizens and the indefinite detention of other humans beings is O.K.?
Wouldn’t any of these things rationally be a reason not to vote for a candidate?
I strongly suggest quit worrying about who to vote for-vote third party. Then put your shoulder into the hard work of trying to undo the immediate mess we find ourselves in.
accually with thunderous silence
So This Is How Liberty Dies…With Thunderous Applause