President Barack Obama rang in the New Year by signing the NDAA law with its provision allowing him to indefinitely detain citizens. It was a symbolic moment to say the least. With Americans distracted with drinking and celebrating, Obama signed one of the greatest rollbacks of civil liberties in the history of our country . . . and citizens partied only blissfully into the New Year.
Ironically, in addition to breaking his promise not to sign the law, Obama broke his promise on signing statements and attached a statement that he really does not want to detain citizens indefinitely.
Obama insisted that he signed the bill simply to keep funding for the troops. It was a continuation of the dishonest treatment of the issue by the White House since the law first came to light. As discussed earlier, the White House told citizens that the President would not sign the NDAA because of the provision. That spin ended after sponsor Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) went to the floor and disclosed that it was the White House that insisted that there be no exception for citizens in the indefinite detention provision.
The latest claim is even more insulting. You do not “support our troops” by denying the principles for which they are fighting. They are not fighting to consolidate authoritarian powers in the President. The “American way of life” is defined by our Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights. Moreover, the insistence that you do not intend to use authoritarian powers does not alter the fact that you just signed an authoritarian measure. It is not the use but the right to use such powers that defines authoritarian systems.
The almost complete failure of the mainstream media to cover this issue is shocking. Many reporters have bought into the spin of the Obama Administration as they did the spin over torture by the Bush Administration. Even today reporters refuse to call waterboarding torture despite the long line of cases and experts defining waterboarding as torture for decades. On the NDAA, reporters continue to mouth the claim that this law only codifies what is already the law. That is not true. The Administration has fought any challenges to indefinite detention to prevent a true court review. Moreover, most experts agree that such indefinite detention of citizens violates the Constitution.
There are also those who continue the long-standing effort to excuse Obama’s horrific record on civil liberties by either blaming others or the times. One successful myth is that there is an exception for citizens. 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.
Obama could have refused to sign the bill and the Congress would have rushed to fund the troops. Instead, as confirmed by Sen. Levin, the White House conducted a misinformation campaign to secure this power while portraying Obama as some type of reluctant absolute ruler, or as Obama maintains a reluctant president with dictatorial powers.
Most Democratic members joined their Republican colleagues in voting for this unAmerican measure. Some Montana citizens are moving to force the removal of these members who they insist betrayed their oaths of office and their constituents. Most citizens however are continuing to treat the matter as a distraction from the holiday cheer.
For civil libertarians, the NDAA is our Mayan moment. 2012 is when the nation embraced authoritarian powers with little more than a pause between rounds of drinks.
So here is a resolution better than losing weight this year . . . make 2012 the year you regained your rights.
Here is the signing statement attached to the bill:
————-
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 31, 2011
Statement by the President on H.R. 1540
Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.
The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.
Source: ABC
If anyone is so inclined – I just called white house to tell them how I feel about this betrayal. The people who take the calls are volunteers. It has worked in his changing positions before (not often but I forget what in the health care bill he brought back as one example (there truly are more, well at least one.) 1-202-456-1111
Mike, well written (as lways) and I agree wholeheartedly.
My sadness at OWS when put in context of Kent State, etc (while not as horrific) is that what should have been the clarion call, the pepper spraying of the protestors who were sitting on the ground and virtually helpless to resist, was reported and then essentially ignored. What would it take to get the people involved, another Kent state? It scares me to think that may be what is necessary and even then, would the media effectively ignore it as they have much of OWS?
I hope I am not the first to point out this horrific typo/editing error:
“… sponsor Senator Carl Levin (Democrat, Michigan) went to the floor and disclosed that it was the White House and insisted that there be no exception for citizens in the indefinite detention provision.”
It should read “… it was the White House that insisted …” Even resorting to brackets (“… the White House [that] insisted …”) would have helped a great deal.
Hey wait wait wait. Mr Turley I have agreed with and respected you for many years and you are free to interpret this bad bill as you see fit.
However!
Why did you only post a portion of the signing statement attached to the bill? The weak and rhetorical part?
This is the statement in it’s entirety and it says considerably more. If it is still insufficient in your view by all means criticize, but don’t pretend it doesn’t exist and mislead all these people.
Yesterday after reading this article I believed the statement you posted was complete. I had no reason to believe otherwise.
The complete statement can be found here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540
Republicans and Democrats are both owned by corporate America. This includes the president and most of congress. I agree that Obama is wrong for signing the NDAA, but many here suggest he should be impeached for it. How could congress impeach Obama for signing an act that they both drafted and voted into law. To impeach the president would be to impeach themselves. I am pretty sure congress is not going to do this.
I’ve been loath to comment here, or even read the comments, especially because I could anticipate the reactions of many commenters for who I have a deep respect. I must side with Mespo’s analysis on this because I think it the most measured. This is not the disaster it is being made out to be. Beyond his analysis of the law I will add my analysis of the broad spectrum of American history, of which I have a dim view with respect to actual civil liberties. Our Constitutional liberties have been breached time and again in our past. These encroachments have come both in times of conflict, as well as in times of peace. Many of them have come about simply because the Administration at the time was impelled by the influence of money to intervene by declaring “breaches of the peace” by citizens coming together to exert their constitutional rights.
Quite recently we can cite the concerted violent effort against OWS nationwide. The response of the Chicago Police in 1968 is another example, as was the Kent State massacre. Prior to that was the Cold War actions against those presumed to be Communists by Joseph McCarthy and HUAC. The imprisonment of Americans of Japanese heritage takes us back further in our history. Preceded by the attack on the D.C. “Bonus Marchers” by Douglas MacArthur. Preceded by the infamous “Palmer Raids”. Preceded by four decades of attempts to break the solidarity of our nascent labor movement in the late 19th Century. If pressed I could go back further in time and actually triple the instances of the disregard for the Constitution
in American. This is precisely why Franklin added his comment “If they ca keep it”.
My point is first that it is because of my knowledge of American history, coupled with my deep respect for our Constitution, that issues of civil liberty have always been uppermost in my political thought. Secondly though, having lived through the rampages of McCarthyism/HUAC as a boy, the 60’s protest movement as a young man and the Iraq debacles as a senior citizen, I am aware that terrible encroachments upon civil liberties, affecting a great many people are a common phenomenon in our history. Given this perspective, I am alarmed, but not surprised by the possibility’s this legislation entails.
The disappointment with Obama did not begin with his signing this bill, but started early on in his decision not to prosecute the prior administration for treason. It then followed as he continued to prosecute these illegal (and stupid) wars and the horrible damage wrought by incarcerations and targeted killings. We had hoped that he would turn away from the policies of
Bush/Cheney, but he profoundly disabused us of our hopes. I write here to castigate Obama, not to praise him.
However, by the end of this New Year we will have to either reject, or re-elect him. What is a civil libertarian to do? In the case of Jonathan Turley and Glenn Greenwald, people who have spent a lifetime defending these numerous Constitutional encroachments of long standing and thus proving their ethical/moral/legal strength in the process, it is perhaps a simple decision and I could understand if they are unable to vote for such a disappointment as President Obama.
To make this personal, as only it can be for an individual citizen, I will vote for Obama unless an unforeseen alternative with a good chance of winning arises. While Ron Paul seems an attractive alternative to many progressives, I have written on other threads my distrust and distaste for the man. I personally believe he is the most dangerous person in the Republican field and the one most likely to destroy our civil liberties. When Obama ran all we had to know his core beliefs were the encouraging statements statements of change he made. I Paul’s case we have a history replete with the likes of The John Birch Society, a bigoted newsletter and an anti-abortion stance that is hypocritically drawn.
Saying he would leave abortion up to the States is a tongue in cheek way of saying he will destroy it. Even if certain States keep it legal, as before Roe v. Wade, those women without funds will be unable to obtain the most personal of legal rights. I’m old enough to know that before Roe v. Wade abortion was common among the wealthy via Puerto Rico, Mexico and Cuba. Some might say that in the broad perspective abortion is not the major civil liberties concern and my guess is that those saying it would be men. If he will let his religious beliefs affect this most personal of civil rights for women, while justifying it hypocritically, there is really no trusting that he will not find justification for encroachment upon other civil liberties. I invite the reader, who may be much younger to peruse the history of the John Birch Society and what it stands for. Having done that please then explain to me and justify why he was a speaker at their
40th Anniversary.
Every Republican running, including Paul initially supported both current wars. They all initially supported the Patriot Act, as in truth did many Democrats. Civil Liberties do not exist in a political vacuum. Most historical American Civil liberties encroachments were direct results of efforts to protect the American system of rule by a wealthy elite, or in the interests of that rule. Every Republican candidate is committed to continue that rule by wealth, Obama is very mildly opposed. At the sacrifice of my “political and civil liberties purity” and in the absence of an immediate short term resolution of the problems that have destroyed our middle class, created a surveillance state and has overwhelmingly incarcerated black men in record rates, I’m supporting the proven hypocritical President. Call me a sell-out pragmatist if you will, but I am far too fearful of the present alternative.
The president being given the authority to invoke or revoke indefinite detention reeks of martial law! I can’t help but wonder why that was justified into the NDAA. What was it that determined that martial law is a necessary contingency?
So…how’s that ‘hope and change’ working out? Hmmm?
Liberty1st 1, January 3, 2012 at 8:11 am
…
WE are the country which pushed the English, French, Russians into trying the Nazis for war crimes and we conducted additional war tribunals at Nuremberg immediately after the four power International tribunals.
=============================================
Correction.
We WERE that country.
James Madison said “If Tyranny and Oppression com this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”
One possible thing you can do about this: “Amnesty International and over 45 other organizations will protest the NDAA and Guantanamo in front of the White House on January 11–the 10th anniversary of the “war on terror” prison. Sign up at http://www.amnestyusa.org/jan11“
JTs post was cross posted on Common Dreams. Here is an important response: “Posted by Crowsnest an 2 2012 – 7:05pm
I have read the pertinent sections 2021 and 2022 of this law as signed by President Obama. It seems to me that the greatest danger this law has introduced is the vagueness of the crimes. When someone takes my car without my permission and without the intent to return it to me that is a theft. However, who has the authority to determine whether a person is a “member of al-Qaeda or an associated force”? Do these organizations have “membership dues and cards?” Apparently only the President is authorized to make that decision without any review by any U.S. or international court. Who protects a detainee against “false arrests”? You say that false arrests never occur? Wow! Check Guantanamo!
The detainee does not even have to be a member of al-Qaeda or associated force but have “planned an attack against the United States or a coalition partner”. What precisely is the nature of a “planned attack?” Would the publication of the “Pentagon Papers” have qualified? What if the “planned attack” is the retaliation by foreign non-military citizens against U.S. Armed Forces or of a coalition partner that has committed a war crime in their country? Numerous such “planned attacks” in retaliation seem to have occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Your otherwise excellent commentary is missing one thing: the remedy. The remedy for this situation is the removal of Obama from office, either by impeachment or by invoking Section 4 of the 25th Amendment. Removal of Obama from office is the only way we can get our Constitution back.
Wow
@JamesUSMC: Funny guy, first you accuse us of falsely seeing conspiracy, and then you tell us the things we should worry about are …. conspiracies!!
And they are. The Citizens United decision is just one result of a conspiracy, a concerted effort by the wealthy, in particular the wealthiest corporations, to subvert the US Government, by purchase of loyalty to their agenda.
What is their agenda? To avoid any liability to workers, citizens or residents of the countries they operate in, to avoid all taxation and tariffs and fees of any government anywhere, to freely exploit, endanger, enslave, kill and discard workers when that is profitable, and to freely pollute, ravage and destroy the environment and any living thing within it as they see fit.
There is a conspiracy, the continual and vague “war on terror” is just another way to subjugate the citizens, the elimination of their rights here sets the precedent for further erosion later. Because those rights and equality in the court are pesky things.
The wealthy do not have to worry about their rights, they have already effectively achieved their elite status in our courts. All it takes for them to thwart justice or delay justice indefinitely against a member of the 99% is money and lawyers, the only time they every worry is if their opponent is ALSO of the 1%.
So the next step for them is to have the government do the job for them, so that the peasants can pay for their own suppression. The police gladly do their bidding against the OWS protesters, with clubs and pepper spray and tasers, but it is made more difficult when the rabble has the right to assembly, and freedom of speech. They need the rabble to quake in fear of both immediate physical injury and bankrupting lawsuits and incarceration. They need the police to be like knights of old, enforcers with the power of immediate execution for disobedience. And that means taking away the defenses of the rabble: Their constitutional rights.
Perhaps you, James, are the one that should wake up and see the whole cloth. There is one conspiracy in this world, and although it has morphed throughout the centuries as religions, monarchies, and various forms of oppressive government, it has always been, and shall always be, the rich against the rest, they royals against the peasants, the church commanding their flock of paying sheep, the elite preserving their status and privilege to subjugate others, with brutality and impunity, to feed their greed.
The comment above s suggests that military training would or lack there of would render one to be a questionable source for expertise. I for one did not rise to the level of corporal like uncle Adolph. Detention of any person without charge, without review, in secret locations, forever or until the perceived threat from Muslims, yippies, lions, tigers and bears is evaporated is tyranny. Those who espose indefinite detention of any person are dumb nazis and those who advocate this for our citizens are worse. Human rights are set forth and supposedly protected by the Constitution, which our President, Senators, House members, military men and women swore to protect, preserve and defend.
WE are the country which pushed the English, French, Russians into trying the Nazis for war crimes and we conducted additional war tribunals at Nuremberg immediately after the four power International tribunals. The United States signed the Hague Treaty. A treaty trumps a congressional budgetary act. The Republican Party does pose a greater threat to civil liberties. But, as in 1933, it was the not so nasty guy named von Hindenburg who was President who pushed the Reichstag Fire Decree into law not his successor Herr Hitler. Our President Obama might be better trusted to rule our lawless state than say Mitt or Newt, but Occupy Wall Street and and our other energetic must focus a step further into what the corporate powers have thus rendered unto Caesar. It aint no salad.
To all the conservatives who have posted before me, I must ask “where have you been for the past decade?” This NDAA has done nothing more than codify practices openly utilized by the previous administration. During that time, Congress did nothing to curb serious abuses. While I agree that President Obama has failed to champion a more civil libertarian attitude, I blame Congress and their pandering to terrified constituents for this situation.
Reichstag? 1933? Give me a break. Watch Fox News for an hour and you can find the source of Levin and McCain’s support.