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
@1zb1: All the liberal-middle judges are old or sick. All the Conservative judges (the ones who decided CU and Bush v Gore) are relatively young by comparison. [emphasis mine]
Patently false. Kennedy is a swing vote, and libertarian, and 75. He does not lean toward the social safety net, and has both voted for and advocated for restrictions on abortion.
The Conservatives are Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts, they are respectively 75, 63, 61, and 56. The average age is 63.75 years.
The liberal-middle are Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, they are 78, 73, 57 and 51. The average age is 64.75 years, and include the youngest and third-youngest members of the court.
You don’t know what you are talking about; I understand you are looking to pick a fight, but you can’t land any easy punches here, you will have to do more work or just suffer looking like a dumbass.
TC: The Right leaning swing vote and 2 Liberal judges are among the 4 oldest. Scalia is the 4th one. Based on age the liberal side of the court has a 3 to 1 higher potential for loss of a member. Almost certainly with the current Senate no judge can be confirmed in the next 10 months. If Obama losses there is a near certainty the court will move 5-4 to the right with a sixth vote to likely be more on the conservative side. Under the Republican’s if the swing vote retires it will become a solidly conservative replacement (and young) for a solid 5-4. If Scalia leaves he would be replaced by someone even nuttier but the court make up would still be right leaning. If either of the liberals retire it will become a solidly conservative 5-4 with the sixth swing vote being the current conservative leaning. In theory you could also wind up with a 7-2 conservative court if all the oldest judges retire during a republican administration.
Redo your math and your thinking.
(Note: the right has managed to make “conservative” into a positive word and liberal into a negative word).
Needless to say age is not the only factor on who will leave the court. And of course the make up of the senate comes into play. But only a fool would want to risk it against such odds.
TC, i can really see just how important civil liberties are to you and being a far left liberal….
“and the Senate simply rejects his selections until he is out of office and the”… gee , you think that might happen?
@Swarthmore: Ginsburg’s colon cancer was treated successfully in 1999, that is twelve years ago without a recurrence. Her Pancreatic cancer was caught at an early stage and removed successfully, two years ago.
The key word is “she had cancer,” she no longer does. She is not on death’s door, and her life expectancy is longer than four years.
She has said just recently “she has no plans to retire anytime soon and still wants to match Justice Louis Brandeis, who stepped down at age 82.” (2015).
In the same article she said she would be there “at least” until 2012, and that she is in good health.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/bolton-endorses-romney-citing-strong-defense-posture/ How will Paul reconcile an endorsement of Romney? Paul supporters hope he won’t but there is speculation that he will if he is invited to speak at the convention.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/203799-ron-paul-supports-romney-on-vulture-layoffs-shame Will Ron Paul endorse Romney?
Swarthmore mom, thank you for pointing out to TC the fairly well known. All the liberal-middle judges are old or sick. All the Conservative judges (the ones who decided CU and Bush v Gore) are relatively young by comparison. There is a very high probability due to health or age that at least 2 and maybe more liberal judges will have to retire in the next 4.5 years.
If there is a republican president it is guarantteed they will be replaced by even more conservative then the current court.
For people who claim to be so upset over CU the notion that it doesn’t matter who gets elected or who is appointed to the Supreme court is fairly idiotic. The notion that they are willing to hope a 78 year old woman with a history of serious illness is going to hang in their for another 4 years or so is the height of lunacy.
@Swarthmore: I was unaware of that. If it isn’t under control, then come July or August, if polling suggests Obama will lose, I expect she will retire.
That is my logic. If it looks clear Obama will win, I think it is a toss-up.
In the event Obama lost re-election, it would be interesting to see what happens if the President nominates a candidate, and the Senate simply rejects his selections until he is out of office and the Republican is in. That would seem like a Constitutional crisis to me. Could the Supreme Court intervene?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/12/stephen-colbert-running-for-president-south-carolina-_n_1201705.html
Tony C, Ginsburg has had both colon and pancreatic cancer. It would be nice to be able to get a liberal for Kennedy’s seat and switch the court toward a more progressive point of view.
@1zb1: Are you purposely obtuse?
The point was that Ginsburg won’t retire with a Republican in office because she isn’t stupid and she knows she’d be replaced by her ideological opposite, and if she wants to retire and thinks a Republican will win, she will retire under Obama.
I do not know how to make this clear to you: Liberal or Progressive judges only choose to retire under Liberal or Progressive Presidents, Conservative judges only choose to retire under Conservative Presidents.
I provided the three most recent examples. Ginsburg does not live in an intellectual vacuum, and Ginsburg is still working at 78 because she thinks it is important, and because she thinks it is important she will not be replaced by a conservative if she can help it. Ginsburg will not retire under a Republican unless she is at death’s door, or has a stroke that mentally disables her.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/the-fantastical-crackpot-_b_1200608.html
@1zb1: At least since Clinton, the Supreme Court Justices have played the waiting game: If they are inclined to retire, they wait for a President likely to appoint a member of their ideological tribe.
Depending on their analysis of the political situation, and barring unexpected death, progressives retire under progressive Presidents, and conservatives retire under Conservative Presidents, so the balance of the court tends to be that there is a one-vote swing.
The Supreme Court makes a difference, but the balance of ideology is very difficult to change. Justices have strong opinions, the job does not seem terribly stressful or demanding even for 90 year olds, and that means they are loathe to abandon a seat and be replaced by their opposite.
If you look at the stats since 1950 or so (which I did back when Kagan was being appointed) most do not die for ten years or so after retirement; only about 25% or so die in the same presidential term in which they retired. Quick death after retirement suggests a knowledge that their end was near (due to cancer or some other illness). Much delayed death suggests they were not in particularly ill health at retirement, and thus they retired by choice, and they certainly are not strangers to politics or ideological battles: I think they care about their successors and pick their retirement times to maximize the odds of a like-mind being appointed and carrying on their legacy, not overturning it.
It is one reason I think the “who will they appoint” debate is a bit overrated, there is about a 75% chance that appointments will not change the balance.
Roberts (a conservative) replaced Rehnquist (a conservative).
Sotomayor replaced Souter (who voted liberal).
Kagan replaced Stevens (who voted liberal).
It isn’t a guarantee, but the correspondence is much stronger than chance, which means I do not weigh the Supreme Court nomination power too highly. If a Republican gets elected, I would suspect Scalia (75, with 25 on the court) or Thomas (63, with 20 years) might choose to retire. They are both Constitutional originalists, so I think that would apply if Ron Paul got elected, too.
Sorry Tony but that was weak…. You can’t seriousely believe what you just wrote.
So you think if a Republican is in the Whitehouse and Ginsberg retires they will appoint a liberal?
CU was all republican appointed conservatives. Currently the divide is roughly 5-4 conservative leaning… the so called swing vote has tended to be even more conservative then past swing votes.
More later… got to go…
How do people feel about the Supreme Court Appointments by Obama of Kagan and Sotomayor?
With 2 and maybe 3 Justices likely to retire in the next 4 years do you think there will be a difference between the appointments of Obama versus Romney or any of the Republicans? How so?
Do you think it will make a difference regarding Civil Liberties, Corporate interests, and other key issues in who gets appointed and by which side? Do you even think it matters at all who gets appointed?
In general, who would you rather have to advance your interests: The Roberts side of issues or the Ginsburg? Who will most likely make appointments favorable to your positions: Obama or a Republican/Tparty?
Do you think who controls the Senate, particularly a need for a super majority, will impact on the appointments?
How important is it to you who sits on the Supreme Court?
Tony C.,
Welcome back.
Warren needs all the financial help she can get as, naturally and quite understandably, Wall Street has gone whole-hog against her. I concur that she appears to be honest regarding her motivations and intentions.
I’m a big one on exercising control at the state level … and not just my own. I look around, find candidates I like and send them money … most of my money goes to democrats but some of it goes to independents (third party people) and republicans. I make judgments based on my individual political values. It’s fairly easy to make those judgments by studying their voting records wherever they have served in office. (That’s why most of Obama’s actions didn’t take me by surprise … it was all there in his voting records. I didn’t send him money when he ran in Illinois. More about that later … gotta get Tex moving 🙂 )
Elaine M.,
I fell relatively safe in opining zero dollars to Warren from Wall Street. I have donated twice to her campaign and will do so again once my taxes are finished.
The Chamber of Greed has put forth quite a nasty ad campaign against Brown here in Ohio. The fact that he has always worked hard to maintain jobs for the people in Ohio is something the foreign interests who fund the Chamber dislike. His strong support for women’s issues is something that angers the fundies … he has a strong wife (Connie Schultz ) and three daughters in their 20’s. The man practices what he preaches. He has always provided real support for veterans. Live in Ohio and have a problem with anything tied to your military service … Brown’s office staff will take care of it within a week. Republicans have a hard time convincing some of their fundies who have served in the military and experienced Brown’s help to vote against him.
These state races can make all the difference. We don’t have much control over the Presidency but get the right Senators and Representatives to Washington and we gain control in many areas.
Tex and I thank you
@Blouise: All is well, thanks!
I will contribute to Elizabeth Warren, btw. That is one Senate seat we can get back, and as far as I know, she has been honest with us.
Blouise,
Elizabeth Warren has already received nearly $6 million in campaign contributions. I wonder how much of that came from the wizards of Wall Street?
BTW, I hope your husband is doing well. I’ll keep him in my thoughts.
SwM,
😉
Tony C.,
I trust the conference went well.
shano,
Please, when contemplating donations, place Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and Alan Grayson of Florida on your list of possible recipients. OWS’ goals need the support these three offer.