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
@Sandi: I think acting from principle means not compromising on principle. There is often room for compromise without violating one’s principles; but sometimes there isn’t. I do not compromise on my principle that citizens cannot be ordered killed without due process. No matter how many times the media asserts they are guilty, no matter how many times the President or anybody else says they are guilty, the government shall not ORDER a citizen killed without DUE PROCESS, and there are NO exceptions.
Compromising on principle is why we now have free speech ZONES, compromising on principle is why the government can use force against peaceful protesters, compromising on principle is why the government can now literally strip search you without a warrant and jail you if you refuse, compromising on principle is why the government can now record every email, every phone call, every tweet and every posting (including this one) made on the Internet. Speaking of which, the government has recently asserted the right to shut down a website, without any due process, if a corporation complains about it: And when that happens, I am sure you will find an excuse for them.
If that is not an autocratic police state, it certainly is not freedom.
BTW, given your willful ignorance about the dangers of Citizens United, I think I’ll stick to my own counsel on the composition of SCOTUS.
GH You are hereby ordered by me NOT to share your thoughts on SCOTUS (note: this was computer generated.)
You seem to be under the impression that I take orders from you.
Then again, you have a lot of incorrect impressions.
Really? Is that the best you’ve got, 1zb1?
Because if it is, your anti-left/left act is much better.
You should stick to the script.
gh: don’t you ever get tired of saying nothing… strain your brain a little and talk about the supreme court… I’m betting you don’t even grasp the implication of what it will mean to the court if there is a R/Tparty president. And your affraid to even admit your position on it.
I’m not sure who Glen is, 1trollboy1, but I am sure it’s about time you changed your identity. This one’s about outlived any utility.
Gh…. another meaningless nothing from a nobody. r u illiterate or do you just pretend to be?
Tony C, I simply do not believe you. If indeed you “voted for Obama twice and contributed several hundred dollars to his campaign” and you now call him a “criminal lying dictator” there is a real disconnect in YOUR thinking not in his. Are you too young to know how politics and politicians work or do you not understand the limits on a President’s power? Either way you do not sound like an “Obama voter”, you sound like a person who supports Ron Paul and is a virtual one issue voter. How you could have voted for or donated to Obama is a true mystery given what I have read from you in the past two days.
I wish Obama had fought a little harder against this legislation but he was not the one who sold us down the river and there is no “new” power grab or fear factor for normal law abiding citizens. The boat for restoring and maintaining all civil rights sailed after 9/11 and until we face our fear and quit cowering at the sound of the TP/GOP, we will not get them back. Expecting Obama to “rescue” us is too simple to credit, that cannot be what you expected.
One issue voters obsess as you have done and I find it hilarious that you are so willing to overlook in so much in Ron Paul, and so little you can credit to Obama. There is no “autocratic police state” and there is not one coming.
I disagree with your position on DADT, If Obama had played “Imperial President” with an edict as Truman did (with the backing of the Supreme Court Obama does not have), he would have been facing impeachment hearings. They fought tooth and nail as it was and he went by the book. You seem to want an alternate reality when this one is all we have.
Now all homosexual soldiers and the world knows this was not some “Obamarule”, this was a chosen, considered, well implemented plan to welcome them fully from now on. It matters IMO.
You seem to think principle can only mean acting by edict even as you talk against an “autocratic police state”. Do you even see the dichotomy there? You seem to think Obama can only be effective if he dies on the sword of righteousness.
You want to support Ron Paul, you go for it. If you hope to make him sound more attractive to us than Obama, save your fingers.
Sandi: WELL SAID!
Jill…. boy the thought police are working late tonight. according to you “No true leftist person of conscience would do such a thing”. If you actually read his rant a few lines above you would realize there was nothing to actually respond to. And if you didn’t have your nose so far stuck up in the air about who is and isn’t left, liberal, or whatever you would appreciate it was the best response to the none comments from a self righteous blow-hard.
As for Glen, its probably working just fine someplace, but if you really think you are worth the time and effort of a computer to deal with you I have to say you really are more delusional then I thought.
In the meantime, hey Jill, and Glen got any thoughts on the Supreme Court or you just going to spend the night with vacuous comments? At least TC started out trying to make an intelligible response even if it made no sense whatsoever.
I think I have made it pretty clear in my remarks voting for anyone other then Obama is going to likely lead to an even more conservative supreme court and even more likely to result in CU type decisions in the future. What do you think?
http://www.thenation.com/article/165440/ron-pauls-strange-bedfellows
How’s that COINTELPRO trolling approach working out for you, 1zb1?
Yeah.
OT and perhaps old news to some:
“DOJ urges judge to side with plaintiff in Baltimore police taping case
In court filing, Civil Rights Division says Baltimore Police deleting man’s videos violates rights”
By Justin Fenton, The Baltimore Sun
8:16 p.m. EST, January 11, 2012
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/breaking/bs-md-ci-aclu-doj-videotaping-20120111,0,7691935.story
It is my contention that the so called “left” wing is now fully authoritarian. It suppresses dissent. Attacks such as telling people to take their medication, like the one above, are ways to try and silence people for stating ideas that go against left wing obedience training.
1z: If you have an argument, make one. If you make remarks about medication then I know exactly who you are and what you are doing. You are an authoritarian who wishes to silence dissent. No true leftist person of conscience would do such a thing. You reveal much about your own and the govt.’s fears with your post.
@Carol: I voted for Obama twice and contributed several hundred dollars to his campaign. I am not proud to have helped a criminal lying dictator into the White House. The price for whatever good he has done is the literal irrelevancy of your rights as a citizen, the price is an autocratic police state, and infinitely higher than any good he has done.
Even on something like DADT: As Commander in Chief and President of the United States, he could have, from day ONE,
a) Simply commanded the military to prioritize prosecutions of DADT lower than parking tickets and gym locker thefts,
b) and then PARDONED anybody convicted of DADT, as is his unlimited Constitutional right as President, and allowed them to continue to serve, as was his right as Commander in Chief.
Instead, he waited two years and let about 700 more gays lose their military careers so he could make a big election-year show (in 2010) out of repealing it.
Truman racially integrated the military by Executive Order, AND integrated women into the military by Executive Order. Certainly, if Obama was acting on principle rather than votes, he could have effectively nullified DADT by executive order and presidential pardon. Instead he turned it into a circus, so both sides could raise money.
“I feel certain there will be none, because you do not vote on principle or actions, you vote on the party.”
Supporting an objectivist, misogynist, racist bigot is not principle, it’s blindness.
Tony you’ve gone from the ridiculous, to the sublime, to the absolutely creepy and I do understand all to well that you’re not even aware of it. It is one thing to pledge not to vote for Obama, that can well be a principled, moral stand, even if I don’t agree with it. It is quite another, in the face of all the evidence presented to support this man who stands for much you purport to abjure. Where you come off though arrogating to yourself the ability to understand those who disagree with you is beyond appalling. With your support for Paul you are revealing yourself as tunnel visioned in principle and strikingly naive in thought.
“…your pride in voting for Obama is sad,.”
Tonyc.
I am very proud I voted for Obama for many reasons. He did get done some of what he said he would do, and this in spite of an obstructionist congress.
I am also very disappointed in some of the things he has done, and the holding of Americans indefinitely is a major blow to my hopes for what he would do but the vote was appropriate as was, and is, my proud in pulling the lever for him..
@1zb1: Backpedal all you want, for the statement I answered you were either ignorant, lying, or just making shit up because you didn’t think anybody knew any different, and like all tribalists, you will just spout anything, because the truth and facts do not really matter to you at all, you have no principles by which you abide. If you need to cheat, rewrite history, be an apologist for a criminal, lie, hurl unfounded insults, whatever, you will do it, because nothing is more important to you than winning, not lives, not even your own self-respect.
And I can help you prove it to yourself: Name any principle Obama could violate and actually lose your vote.
I feel certain there will be none, because you do not vote on principle or actions, you vote on the party. Obama could vote to outlaw abortion, and he would still be the lesser of two evils in your mind. He could agree to gut Social Security and Medicare entitlements (he already did that implicitly with his catfood commission) and he would still be the lesser of two evils in your mind. He could declare war on Iran, and he would still be the lesser of two evils in your mind. He could extend and amplify the Bush Tax Cuts, and he would still be the lesser of two evils in your mind.
There is no bridge too far for you, because it is obvious to me that in your mind, Democrats are always the lesser of two evils, no matter what they do. That is not a principled position, it is a tribalist position, and lazy thinking. Or just non-thinking, because obviously thinking is too much trouble for you.
TC: Take your medication. Get outside whatever hole you live in and go for a walk. Smell the air (hopefully it will be relatively breathable where you are) and enjoy the light. Try to get some oxygen to your brain. Take a baby asprin to avoid having a stroke. If you delerium does not improve call 911.
It also appears he voted against MLK day and he or his ghostwriter bragged about it in his infamous newsletter too.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/mlk-day-fact-check/251037/
Even the National Review does not believe Ron Paul and I am “ignorant” not to? Please!
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/286658/trouble-ron-pauls-defense-jonah-goldberg
“f Paul’s explanations are to be believed at face value, he’s a shockingly naïve man. If your goal is to persuade people that the libertarian cause is free of bigotry, courting support from bigots is a really stupid way to do it.”
I agree, maybe he is just stupid, but I will not accept your support as validation when that is not what my “lyin’ eyes” are telling me.
P.S. In case that wasn’t clear, Ron Paul would have voted for abolishing the Jim Crow laws as unconstitutional; he has said, more than once, he does not think the government has the right to discriminate based on race or religion. And that is, btw, the reason he is opposed to affirmative action; he believes that unequal consideration based on race, either positive or negative, is unconstitutional and unfair.
And again, I am reporting those views, not endorsing them.
@Sandi: He would have us go back to Jim Crow in a nano-second and forget gay rights being recognized by the likes of him!
On the contrary, without me endorsing Ron Paul’s view, Ron Paul has explicitly, on tape, affirmed that had he voted on the civil rights law, he would have voted for everything that restricted government from discriminating based on race, including the Jim Crow laws, his disagreement was with whether it was Constitutional for the government to dictate who a private company must serve, and that on the grounds that the Constitution does not give the Federal Government the right to dictate the terms of a trade that occurs entirely within a State, which service at a lunch counter obviously does.
As for gay rights, perhaps you should look at his voting record: Ron Paul voted twice to repeal DADT, despite the fact that he was going against his party and there was plenty of Republican cover for him to vote otherwise, led by John McCain.
Ron Paul has also been consistently opposed to the war on drugs, on the grounds that your body is yours to drug if you want to do that. The war on drugs is the most racially and economically biased program in existence, the rich and celebrities, including politicians, can flout the laws at will and even brag about using drugs on TV. If they get caught, they get rehab, community service they do not have to do, or literally a few hours in jail before they are released.
Poor blacks or Hispanics can be sent to jail for years over trivial amounts. Ending the war on drugs at the Federal level, as Paul has repeatedly promised to do and could actually execute as Chief Executive, and giving Presidential pardons to all non-violent drug offenders in jail, as Paul has also repeatedly promised he would do, would free FAR more minority offenders than white offenders, and far, far more poor offenders than rich ones.
Your view that speech should be restricted is laughable, your pride in voting for Obama is sad, and your ignorance about the actual voting record of Ron Paul and your willingness to accuse him of things he has never done betrays the fact that you are, simply, a tribalist, you have swallowed the claims of the media without question, without the least bit of curiosity, evidence, or skepticism, without one minute of independent research.
@1zb1: Oh and btw, the swing vote Kennedy was part of the 5 vote majority that decided Bush v. Gore in favor of Bush. He reportedly says he “has considered” overturning Roe v. Wade, but has settled for affirming restrictions on the right instead, including a failed attempt to criminalize late term abortions. He has voted against gun control laws, he was the swing vote in allowing the Boy Scouts to ban homosexual scout masters. In my view, he is not a liberal or progressive.
If we count him among the conservatives, the average age of conservatives on the court rises to 66: OLDER than the average liberal-middle of 64.75. Although, I do not think a year makes any difference whatsoever, I am just pointing out how wrong you are.
TC. I think after Sandi Saunder’s very well said response you must have completely lost it. Rational is simply not within the range of your thinking.
As I said, “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.” (in other words the court is moving more and more and more right)
Thank you for making a perfect point for my case. With the liberal side of the court already so tenuous and heavily outweighed by the right you are willing to jepordize all that you claim to support in support of someone, even if elected (not happening) who would only make it worse by his twisted notions of the constitituion and the country.
Given that RP has embraced the Republican/Tparty on the basis of its so called less government and more market driven principles he has also embraced its social policies that invade on personal freedoms. (in other words he compromised his beliefs in one area for the sake of his other so called beliefs.
On that basis, why didn’t he embrace the Democratic party on its personal freedoms and work to make it more to his econmic polilcy likings? Afterall we all know (and he has acknowledged) that the Republican/Tparty is all about freedom to exploit in the Boardroom but not freedom in the bedroom or freedom when it comes to a woman’s own body, or other personal freedoms. If he was willing to split his alligance why not on the Democratic Side?
In any event there is no escaping the fact that unless you believe the Supreme court doesn’t matter at all, you are willing to throw the future of the court on the fire for the sake of someone you claim to not believe in and despise. Makes perfect sense in some altered universe but not in reality.
*note, I would have been more then happy if the CU decision came down against unlimited corporate/special-interest/wealthy spending even though it has been my argument that such spending would have just found other ways to rip us off while raising other problems for civil liberties. For example, Adelson would have still been able to spend large amounts of money to promote his agenda in other wasy. As far as I am concerned Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas are among the worst and most dishonest judges ever to sit on the court. If a Republican/Tparty person is elected we will likely get another one to join them…. there won’t be any swing vote on anything for generations to come. Furthermore, even if the liberal side could hold out for 4.5 years who says a Republican/tparty would not get re-elected for another term?
People keep saying “its the economy, stupid.” For me, “its the supreme court, stupid.” You have clearly not thought this through.