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
rafflaw,
As far as I can tell, these politicians are talking out of both sides of their mouths. How can we trust any of them?
Look at what happened to Russ Feingold. Wasn’t he the only senator who voted against the Patriot Act?
Most members of the mainstream media are a bunch of hacks who only care about their careers–not about providing citizens with the truth. They give us two sides of every story and think their job is done.
You guys who attacked Lyndon LaRouche for telling you this was the nature of Obama- A Nero/Hitler mentality OWE LAROUCHE A BIG APOLOGY.
You can start by telling your Congressman over the Congressional Recess that Impeachment Papers are presently waiting to be served on Obama NOW!!
Click on http://www.larouchepac.com/node/20069 for an interview with Professor Francis Boyle of the University of Illinois on the urgency of the Introduction of Impeachment .
A sad day in America is made worse by the confusion over this indefinite detention issue. The Obama that I voted for would have vetoed this bill, as Truman had done before him in a similar situation. I think we should also look at the Democratic Senators who voted for this bill. The same Dem. Senator(Levin) who claims the White House asked for the indefinite detention of citizens to be left in voted for the bill so I am not sure how to take his statements. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think only 14 Senators voted against this bill, including Durbin, Wyden, Franken along with some Republican Senators. Even Senator Paul voted against this bill for christsakes! The rest who voted for the bill should also be held up to scrutiny. This was a rebuke to the Bill of Rights and should be overturned. While we are at it, let’s rescind the AUMF or put a time deadline on it! Make Congress and the President come back to get a declaration of War.
re “1zb1” @ 11:05,
“But at the same time the greatest challange to liberty in its full dimension is not Obama, and it is not this bill. If you can’t see we face a larger war and greater threat then perhaps we have already lost the real war.”
And what would that “greater threat” be than extinguishing basic constitutional rights?
Maybe we should have a discussion about whether the so-called GWOT fits the definition of war or is more appropriately handled as a police/law enforcement issue, at least domestically? That would seem to be the hook on which these super patriots hang their hat, perhaps giving more credit than is due to the knee jerk, fear induced excuse for endless war.
http://www.coherentbabble.com/latest.htm (the full text of the signing statement)
Jill, With all the Paul supporters around here not a chance.
Trudy, I don’t accept what Lederman says as gospel, either. What he wrote was a considered opinion, though.
er, and the link is —
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/holder_obama_will_issue_signing_statement_with_ndaa.php
S.M.,
I am glad you do not support this law. I wish you would stop speaking out on behalf of the man who signed it.
In Nov. of 2010 I heard Harold Koh lay out Obama’s authority to kill anyone, anywhere, including American citizens. This action by congress and the signing of this “law” by Obama merely codifies his claimed powers.
Basically, like Bush before him, Obama has said there is permanent war–the GWOT and war which he declares is in effect. Because he has declared we are in a state of permanent war (also a claim of Bush) he will conveniently have these rights as long as he maintains that we are at “war”.
One of the essences of an authoritarian regime is permanent war. Please do not support a man who asserts such dangerous and illegal powers for himself.
I got into a argument at TPM last week — being attacked by several apparently koolaid drinking dems — for objecting to this law. The attackers gave all the usual spin including this noxious idea that the law is benign. Even I can cognize that a law that doesn’t change any existing rights, at a time when those “rights” include assassination of American citizens abroad, means less than nothing.
It was a minor diversion for me and I just got into commenting and attracted this attack. I had foolishly thought that at least some TPM commenters had some more sense. Actually, when I used the example of LBJ lying to Americans about not sending “American boys to fight and Asian war”, one person came out of the woodwork to affirm that was a legitimate formatory moment.
Also FWIW, here is the TPM link to the little story. Typical for TPM there is no criticism of Obama admin and virtual stenography for the admin spin. Looks like the comments have been taken off line.
And, FWIW, you wouldn’t believe the.nasty nasty ad hominems they had to say about Glen Greenwald. And called me a bad dem, which really hurt ; – ( Not.
Swarthmore Mom:
Marty Lederman was one of the authors of the secret memo authorizing the killing of al-awlaki, an american citizen who had not been charged with a crime:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/secret-us-memo-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
<>
Perhaps a bit of conflict of interest on his part as he’s so closely embedded with the administration.
Is President Obama a gutless New Democrat who compromises before the fight or just a mendacious hack, perhaps these two thoughts constitute a tautology? Might we consider that the thought of losing the power of the Presidency has made concrete Obama’s political schizophrenia that could be expressed by the split between the political Obama and the rhetorical Obama? Yet shouldn’t we be reluctant to judge this talented legal scholar as incapable of a betrayal of the Great Writ, by commission or simple inattention, or does that stretch credulity to point of nullification? Or, have we reached the point at which there is no turning back, on the subversion of the idea and practice of constitutional governance, and that we are living in an age where the crisis is the rule rather than the exception, to put it Schmittian terms?
Dear President Obama:
I know that you will read this post because you are a discerning lawyer and edited the Harvard Law Review. Well discrern this. In your election I personally drove approximately 240 voters to the polls for the Democratic Party and particularly to get you elected. This time around I will be working for Ron Paul or a Libertarian Candidate. There is no reason to be a Democrat. The descendants of the Nuremberg Trials are watching your conduct. If you have time for some reading on the subject look up “The Judges Trial” and if you do not have any books on the subject obtain Tyranny On Trial by Whitney Harris. Google Herr Altstoffer. The dismantling of the law to then persecute people is a WAR CRIME.
Jill, Absolutely not, but I read a variety of legal opinions which I am in the process of doing to fully understand the laws. I don’t trust everything Glenn Greenwald says to be fact. He is one pundit that I have diminished respect for after the Ron Paul column the other day. He is not considered to be a top constitutional lawyer.
“Brace yourself. The American empire is over. And the descent is going to be terrifying.” -Chris Hedges from “The World As It Is.”
http://www.c-span.org/Events/In-Depth-with-Author-and-Journalist-Chris-Hedges/10737426679-1/
JQ,
It is more accurate to say that this is an extreme right wing bill and extreme right wing president who is supported both by people on the extreme right (such as most of the PNAC group) as well as people who identify themselves as being on the “left”.
Trying to pawn this off on the right wing alone is disingenuous and a form of propaganda. It does not fit reality.
Many in this forum would like us to believe that the signing of this bill by the President is fully supported by the left. That assertions is so far from the truth. NDAA is a dream come true for the extreme right. Even Henry Kissinger just tweeted how much he loves President Obama for signing NDAA into law.
S.M.,
Do you find this bill acceptable? Is so, why?
@Josh S: The bill specifically gives the military and Intelligence agencies sole discretion in determining if ANY person is an enemy combatant, and should be detained indefinitely without charges or trial. That specifically includes citizens, because the Senate rejected an amendment that excluded citizens. The language about “not changing the legal rights of citizens” means nothing in light of the power granted to the military, Intelligence, and their common leader: The President, who has already asserted and exercised the “inherent power” to have the CIA kill an American citizen he personally declares an “enemy” wherever they are found, in combat or not, including on American soil.
Your rights are gone, so is your freedom of speech. If the military decides you are causing trouble, they can whisk you away to prison under this law, and you do not have the right to speak to an attorney, the do not have any responsibility to inform your family or anybody else about their kidnapping of you, and you will never get to tell anybody but your cell mate, if you even have one, about how your right to free speech, an attorney, or due process. As far as the world is concerned, you will have just vanished. I think you’d be lucky if anybody even knew it was the Administration that vanished you.
The two parts of the law are self-contradictory, you cannot have rights and ALSO grant the military or CIA this power. Which half of this law do you think the Military, CIA, and President will point at when they want to eliminate a citizen causing them trouble?