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).
Blouise/Mike,
I think anyone really interested in making effective change needs to read “Non-violent Resistance (Satyagraha)” by M.K. Gandhi, “Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict” by Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan, and “Nonviolent Struggle – 50 Crucial Points” by Srdja Popovic, Andrej Milivojevic and Slobodan Djinovic (available as a free .pdf download here).
Knowing how to resist is as important as knowing when to resist. The time is now. The above books show how.
“In my opinion, Obama is a shallow man who simply knows how to talk a good game.”
Blouise,
I think you and are are pretty much on the same page. I see dealing with the impending Corporate Feudalism, not as a single thrust for freedom, but as a battle fought across the whole spectrum of needs to reform. Having worked my whole career dealing with people oppressed in one form or another, I know the deep misery felt by many in terms of grinding poverty and oppression. I’m not in favor of any revolution that would sacrifice those most badly affected by the economic and social disparities of this country, on the altar of expediency.
The Marxists I knew in the 60’s wanted society to totally collapse to force a revolution. I called them assholes to their faces because we were in a Union that worked with the poor and oppressed. I am willing to resist the Feudalistic Corporate takeover openly as I have done here on this blog and in the organizations I openly belong to, but I’m not willing to allow further harm to be visited upon the 99% of this nation by grand gestures motivated by anger.
As far as revolutions go, violent ones simply empower the the sociopaths on the winning side and in the end they become what “The Who” so eloquently sang:
The President and the members of Congres who voted for this piece of dung violated their oaths of office: “…to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States…” and in so doing committed treason. “We the people… do ordain.” Remember? And what ever happened to “one man, one vote?’ Now is the ash heap of broken promises in what is now Fourth Reich America.
Blouise,
😉
Just for you:
“Gene H, Sorry you are so confused by what I said”
No. I wasn’t confused at all, Jlue. You were misusing words you don’t understand. And you did it again:
“You coin the term ‘corporatist fascist’” I didn’t coin that term. Just because you don’t know what that means doesn’t mean it isn’t a real concept in the realm of political science, it just means you’re ignorant as to what it means. It’s a corporatist state with a fascist economic/political model. If you were competent in political science, the term wouldn’t be new to you. “Obama’s past associations . . . ” are irrelevant. His actions since taking office show him to be in the same corporate pockets as Bush was. “but his actions and words are those of a socialist. ” No they aren’t just because you say they are – you have demonstrated that you don’t know what socialism or a socialist is so you aren’t qualified to make that call.
Socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. Such ownership and/or regulation can be implemented to varying degrees of control. That does not mean no private property. No private property is a tenet of Marxism or Communism which are the extremist forms of socialism . . . much like lassez-faire capitilism is the underpinnings of corporatist fascism.
Corporatist fascism (which is what we’re really talking about here) is where there is ownership by private individuals with government control OR private business interests dictate the priorities of the state, both towards a nationalistic, militaristic and oppressive government that is anti-democratic– the second definition being exactly what both Bush and Obama have done, let business interests dictate the priorities of state against the will of the people.
You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. If you want to make up the meanings of words, be ready to be called to task on it. “You may be a lawyer, but that doesn’t mean you are automatically right.” No, being being properly educated in the subject matter and right means I’m right. Don’t use words you don’t understand and you won’t have this problem in the future. Better yet, get educated on the subject matter and quit consuming and regurgitating ridiculous propaganda.
The following link has nothing to do with anything discussed on this thread … it’s just a short, pleasant read:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/please-stop-sharing/?nl=opinion&emc=tya1
Gene,
“You may be a lawyer, but that doesn’t mean you are automatically right.” (jlue)
Harumph!
Jlue, So, Obama was forced to appoint his cabinet by some ‘conservative’ forces hiding in the shadows? His pick of Tim Geithner was his own. Gad, your whole post is one of conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact, just speculation of the most abhorrent kind.
The Savings and Loans were taken over by the government in the past. The banks should have been handled the same way but were not because Obama chose to handle the crisis in the way the banks preferred. That is fascism.
America has had many, many “jobs programs” in our history. We built the Interstate Highway system, huge water projects like Hoover Dam, the intercontinental railroads and government brought electricity to rural areas all over the nation. These were not Marxist or socialist programs, they were investments in American infrastructure that we still rely on today.
Knowing nothing about American history leads to this sort of wild speculation about Obama. Or is it somehow different when a black POTUS does the same thing?
btw, I think the Health Care bill would have been much better without them caving to the corporate opposition. jmho.
http://nation.foxnews.com/newt-gingrich/2011/12/15/newt-fire-obama-saul-alinsky-radical The marxist socialist thing is getting resurrected by the r’s. It is so far from the truth.
Gene H, Sorry you are so confused by what I said, however, you must be interested in demonizing and the best way many find to do this is try and find a connection to Adolf Hitler. The left enjoyed doing that to George Bush. I am interested in understanding the men and what they are actually trying to do. I think I am more accurate than you.
America is not under a Marxist regime so Obama is unable to “nationalized the banks, the oil industry and the entirety of the health care industry (among other things)”. It isn’t because he doesn’t have a heart for that, but rather he doesn’t have the freedom right now and there is still the Constitution to slow him. He still has to run for re-election. During a second term he will do much more of what he has an inclination to do since he will not face re-election. He has nationalized as much as he felt safe doing with an executive order or could get passed in Congress.
You coin the term ‘corporatist fascist’. Obama’s past associations, his books, and his speeches do not portray his as a fascist. A dictator wannabe – maybe, but his actions and words are those of a socialist. Think about his ‘American Jobs Act’ he talked about so much. I am not sure it was actually written, but he made many speeches about this ‘act’ that would include road projects, repair projects, hire government employees, etc. Consider the Healthcare Bill and what it would have been had there been no opposition to the original legislation. Look at the bills he has supported.
Check out what Mr.Obama studied prior to becoming Sen. or Pres. Obama. Look at his past life. You may be a lawyer, but that doesn’t mean you are automatically right.
Mike S.,
Your post at 12:10p today regarding the reasons for voting for Obama was very well said as were Swm, angryman, Gene, and raff’s responses.
There are also deep lessons in the references you made to HHH/LBJ/Eugene in your 11:40a post today.
LBJ pushed the Civil Rights platform yet at the same time sent a disproportionate number of young black men to die in his Nam war. (MLK Jr railed against this official killing of black men to the point that some say it cost him his life.)
The Democrats knew they were losing the South due to Civil Rights and knew they were losing the North due to Nam and pushed out LBJ failing to give HHH enough time (a late nomination) to overcome the damage done by Johnson.
Voilà … Nixon with his White House imperial uniforms, peace with no honor, Kent State Massacre, and Watergate.
In my opinion, Obama is a shallow man who simply knows how to talk a good game. (The color of his skin has nothing to do with the caliber of his mind and those who wish to use color are operating under a totally hidden agenda.)
The lack of a strong male influence in his early years makes him easy prey for his CIA/Wall Street type handlers. It is the influence of Biden that we should be looking at and concentrating on.
We have been here before … we need to pay attention to the lessons learned.
Jill, posters have ask you to qualify your statements that Obama is a ‘racist’ (ridiculous), and now you say he is a Marxist/Socialist? Haha, wow you really are in fantasy land there. Obama has governed as a corporate centrist and that is the problem. I only wish he was a Socialist.
Looking for OWS to expand and grow in 2012. Some very interesting actions planned for OWS, including the DC action in March.
“Barack Obama is a Marxist-Socialist.”
Don’t use words you don’t know the meaning of, jlue. This is a blog populated with experts in law, language and political science (to name but a few of the specialties of the regular contributors). Inaccuracies such as yours will always be challenged.
Obama is a corporatist fascist, just like Bush before him and every clown currently running for office. A Marxist would have nationalized the banks, the oil industry and the entirety of the health care industry (among other things). A socialist (specifically a democratic socialist – there are many types of socialism just like there are many types of democracy) would have nationalized health care insurance (but not the whole health care industry), re-regulated the banks and the oil industry (although given the role of the oil industry in both starting unnecessary wars and causing ecological disaster by cutting corners to boost profits, they might have been nationalized too) and if they believed in the rule of law they would have put the Bush administration and half of Wall Street on trial for their various crimes. A corporatists fascist would have simply rolled over and given industry a pass including forgoing prosecuting the traitors in the previous administration (because he works for the same masters they did). Just like Obama did. Much like Hitler, Obama promised social reforms in the vein of socialist practice, but instead delivered fascism. People believed his lies because most people think the government does not serve in their best interests any more but rather cater to themselves and wealthy/corporations that fund their political campaigns. He’s many things, including a liar and a traitor to his oath of office to protect the Constitution, but Obama is neither a Marxist nor a socialist (of any sort). Marxism and socialism are both political and economic models. Marxism is the only economic form that is plainly unconstitutional, but it is among several political models that are plainly unconstitutional such as monarchy, dictatorship and oligarchy. Capitalism as an economic model has just as poor a human rights record as any economic system, but capitalism is an economic model until it falls into lassez-faire capitalism which is a political/economic model – a political model that leads inexorably to Corporatist fascism. Corporatist fascism has the worst human rights record of all forms of political/economic models as that was the model of Nazi Germany. If you want to demonize Obama for his political and economic leanings, be accurate in your criticisms. A key part to confronting any demon is knowing their true name.
Thank you angry man. You are sure correct about the banks, but I do think Santorum, Perry, Gingrich, etc. are way to the right of Obama. Don’t think we will be stopping either party in 2012 as the process is well underway.
Why are people surprised at what Obama is doing? He was not vetted by the press, but those who wanted to know found out prior to the election that Barack Obama is a Marxist-Socialist. Marxism and Socialism both have VERY poor records when it comes to human and civil rights.
Also, study President Obama’s past and his mentors and it is easy to see why he does what he does. Obama may very well believe that people in this country are guilty of colonialism and that America needs to be punished for this ‘crime’.
Who we elect is important and who runs is important. Our greatest need is to defeat Barack Obama. Hopefully we will elect a good president, but we MUST defeat Obama. If a third party candidate prevents this, America will not be able to recover from what will happen in Obama’s second term.
When the current right wing gets into power I expect to see WWIII. And an huge increase in Multinational corporate power with the resulting huge increase in environmental degradation everywhere in the world. What will they do with all those environmental refugees? Lock them up for the Prison Industrial complex.
Now we have a choice between slim and none in regard to saving our habitable planet. Both parties do the bidding of the Multinationals, but as Grayson says, the GOP is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Multinationals, while the Democrats cater to them as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/opinion/gop-monetary-madness.html Krugman takes on Ron Paul’s economics.
Someone posted this interesting list as a comment at HuffPo:
The new incorporated states of America check list, so far.
Incarceration of the citizenry without trial.
Cleanse the legal system of any opinions other than the party sanctioned ones.
Vilify the media and try to close down NPR.
Impose control of thought and free speech over the internet.
Make the poor, Latino’s and blacks into bogymen.
Blame the citizens for what Wall Street did.
Deny the past.
Speed up the eviction of struggling homeowners.
Name the next war for oil and the shedding of American blood they want to wage.
Hide their agenda behind a faux religious banner.
Remove the safety net we all paid into.
Allow bridges to collapse, roads to crumble and the rail network to become increasingly fractured and uncompetitive.
Run the risk of destroying the American water table with fracking and oil spills and usher in the golden era of rivers and lakes catching fire again.
Destroy the natural beauty of heritage sites so their employers can make a large short term profit.
Allow as many toxins as the atmosphere can hold for the same reasons.
Cheer on the police crackdown on dissent and display the portent to our liberty this reflects.
Disenfranchise any voter that might fall into a category that doesn’t support their position.
Make it much easier for their fraudster, bankster criminal cartel partners, to operate outside the law.
Break the unions and remove any obstacles that might get in the way.
Force more people into poverty, so they become desperate enough to take a pittance salary.
Make jingoistic rhetoric, lapel pin wearing, flag waving and displays of fervent patriotic imperialism a pre requisite and a mandatory exercise in schools along with saluting the flag, an oath to party allegiance and rewriting the school books to exclude the annoyance of facts polluting the mind of the next generation.
They are offering a corporate totalitarian future and the blind don’t see it, because of the tactics of fear propaganda.
“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.”
Jill,
I’m 67 years old and I have been involved in making things better and fighting the status quo in America since my teens, which I think is longer than you’ve been alive. Why in hell do you think I write here, using my real name, if not as a form of resistance. My entire working career was devoted to making things better for people as a social worker/psychotherapist/union activist/social service executive/creator of social service programs. How dare you in your “more politically pure than thou” attitude seek to counsel me to join in to oppose a corrupt system.
You remind me of the “Trotskyite” faction of my Union in the late 60’s. Their
slogan was: “Organize, we’ve got to Organize”. However, their method of organization was to alienate their potential support and in the end accomplish nothing.
The French have long been plagued by the concept of “Le Beau Geste” (the Grand Gesture). This is to for instance attack and die but do so magnificently. Martyrdom is not my metier as a revolutionary plan. The Trotskyites were right in one sense in that we do have to organize, but 2012 is upon us momentarily and the only effective organization OWS, is only a few months old. Any real opposition has to begin now and look towards 2016, if it even matters by then if Republicans gain control in 2012. Had the country listened to you in the 2008 election we would have gotten McCain/Palin, do you really think that would have been a better alternative, or that their record would be better, not worse than Obama’s?
In the words of John McCain:
Again, Bravo,
Not everyone is suited to do the same things. The attitude that my contribution is more important than yours is one of the main reasons for infighting among members of any group.
The key to organization and team-work is for each person to do what he/she is best at. In that way no one is over taxed and maximum efficiency can be achieved.
This battle will not be won in the voting booth. But I disagree with Jill when she says we don’t have much chance of winning. History has proven repeatedly that Movements like OWS have an excellent chance of winning. Recent history also. Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Libya, Poland, Chechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Chetchnia, etc. OWS is just such a Movement. We will prevail Jill.
The battle though; must be fought on multiple fronts. We should be voting for the lesser of the available evils until the Occupation has succeeded to at least attempt to slow these Fascists down.
Every; read that !!!Every!!! person is valuable to this struggle. Becuase struggle it will be. But America is on the move. We should all be encouraging participation in OWS. We should all be doing Whatever we can but if we do it with hate and competitiveness in our heart; we defeat the spirit of the Movement and the Purpose.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/12/01/380148/john-danforth-slams-gop-field/