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
The Constitution of the United States and our Bill of Rights is the law.. Obama is not a dictator.. if he signs anything that is not in-line with the law,, it is invalid….and because he has taken the step beyond his right and has violated his oath of office.. he must be impeached…Congress must move immediately…on this,, it is their duty as representatives of the people..
The head of the demonic party has spoken, if only he weren’t a token.
“Just look at the amendments that failed. If the Senators had any guts, they would have voted no and explained to the public why. I think the public would have understood.” — Raffflaw
You bet the public would have understood. You don’t have to be a raving sort of libertarian to either make that case or understand it. But, of course, it’s easier, and lazier, to hide behind the exigencies of military funding and the boogeyman of ‘soft on terror’.
And getting home for the Xmas turkey of course.
@Gene H.
Now that we know Obama is full of lies and has no respect for the Constitution or civil liberties, and no qualms about war, and not even a passing respect for the welfare of the 99%, I have long wondered precisely what his goals have been all along.
I have yet to come across a motivational explanation that satisfactorily explains the authoritarian right-wing, corporatist leanings. I don’t think he cares about the history books, he could easily have been a beloved populist just by keeping his campaign promises. I don’t think he cares about the financial benefits coming; he was already a legitimate multi-milliionaire author, and as a famous Harvard law graduate, could undoubtedly have earned many millions more.
He has obviously thrown us under the bus, IMO consciously and of his own volition, but I still cannot figure out even a plausible motivation for him to do that. If it isn’t money or ego, what in the world is motivating him?
s’ok . . .
Self Centered Vinny, Go back to selling whatever. Sorry I must have confused you with another FDL poster, Don S.
Oh yeah, SM, I forgot — I did publish here once under “I’m not even going to give my handle”, because I live in a very small town, have alluded to my professional role in that town, and am easily identified by anyone who can connect those dots. And I’m not a public figure who get’s paid to have opinions so, given the constraints of that particular circumstance, it ain’t happening.
You?
Obama, history is calling you on line one.
It’s calling you a villain on par with George Bush and Dick Cheney.
Quite frankly, I have to agree with history.
Shall I put the call through or are you content to wait until history comes for a visit?
Elaine,
you are right about the MSM, but they only give two sides of the same side! But they did not cause this problem. The politicians did and they are trying to point the finger everywhere but at themselves.
Swarthmore,
You are right that if the indefinite detention language was not combined with the defense reauthorization it may have gotten more no votes, but I don’t think it would have been defeated. Just look at the amendments that failed. If the Senators had any guts, they would have voted no and explained to the public why. I think the public would have understood.
“It would also be more honest to not post under so many names”
Could you be more specific SM? I have published under “DonS” for over 10 years (when Prof Turley was still just Res Ipsa prior to blog!) except when the stupid vagaries of certain blog protocols elude my attempts. Usually I just give up.
I am basically apolitical, and I certainly don’t see Obama as guarantor ofmuch. That part is right.
DonS,
You must understand that only certain minorities may post as faux Mexicans. Today, you have been called out for things only certain people can do. If you don’t change your stance on Obama the sanctimonious side will evolve.
Think Progress, another admin-oriented outlet, headlines the reservations in the signing statement, and in the body of the story only reprints the signing statement — does not comment on the whole debacle except to say it was “controversial. Commenters are more to the point although, on my scanning, they don’t highlight TP’s weak tea of a story.
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/12/31/396018/breaking-obama-signs-defense-authorization-bill/
Don S, It is cleaner. Is the legislation or the derision of Obama more important? It would also be more honest to not post under so many names. Your focus is always on Obama. I wonder when Romney is nominated and elected if you will still focus totally on Obama.
“This legislation should not have been part of the defense bill. It should have been voted up or down separately. Probably would have had a lot more votes against it if that had been the case.”
And the point is? If a separate vote was down, O is off the hook? If a separate bill passed, then the real, courageous O-man would veto it.
Sorry, that water is already under the bridge. He had the chance. Congress never would have left the military without funding; a way would/could have been found. Obama lied and/or caved. Again.
The signals from the WH were that Obama would cave, therefore Congressional dems, in particular didn’t, even need to stand on principle. I guess that’s your point; that they would have. How that in any way relieves Obama fom ultimate responsibility for passage I don’t know. And, frankly, with regard to the extinguishing of Constitutional rights with the stroke of a pen, I don’t care too much about the technicalities. They’re all complicit. Just don’t claim Obama didn’t have his hand on the switch.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ndaa-heres-the-scariest-most-outrageous-part-2011-12 Possible republican VP nominee, Rob Portman, received nearly $300,000 for backing the bill from lobbyists that will benefit.
Fear, including the global war on terror, is now the excuse for anything, and this law passing with only fringe outrage proves it works. 100% of civil liberties can be taken with impunity, all they have to do is point at the bogeyman, say he is going to kill you if you do not submit, and a super-majority of people cave, Democrats and Republicans alike. No proof necessary, and no restraint necessary, not even any logic is necessary, because as the same authoritarians will tell you, the bogeyman acts without reason!
Or claim the world’s financial system will collapse and we’ll all be eating in soup kitchens if we do not bail out the banks and give the crooks amnesty and be sure to hide exactly who the beneficiaries and profiteers of the bail out will be. Do you want a great depression?!?
We have entered a new age with 9/11, the discovery by the government and their military-industrial-banking owners that absolutely anything can now be justified to the American people by fear and the false promise of safety and security, no matter how illogical or implausible or unconstitutional. Anything.
This legislation should not have been part of the defense bill. It should have been voted up or down separately. Probably would have had a lot more votes against it if that had been the case.
http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/truestory.html
Just a portion of the article:
Attacking Environmentalism
Pro-LaRouche publications have been at the forefront of denying the reality of global warming and have denounced Greenpeace and other ecology groups. 21 One of the major planks of the LaRouche platform is the immediate construction of numerous nuclear power plants.
The LaRouchites have a long history of snooping on environmentalists and other progressive activists and groups, and providing biased and distorted information to the media and government law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
In fact, the industrious LaRouchites have run what is essentially a private international intelligence gathering operation for decades.24 For a time, top LaRouche aides supplied information to Ronald Reagan’s National Security Council.25 They have falsely accused environmental activists (and civil liberties activists) of plotting terrorism.
Thuggery
During a five month campaign called “Operation Mop-Up,” some LaRouche supporters used fists and martial arts weapons to break up meetings and beat up LaRouche’s opponents on the political Left in the 1970s. Many targets of LaRouchite thuggery were injured and some were even hospitalized. At the time, one progressive publication described the LaRouchites as “Brownshirts of the Seventies” because of the similarity of these attacks to those carried out by Hitler’s “Brownshirt” thugs in the 1920s.
Seems to me like it’s not sound or necessary to conflate objection to these detention provisions on Constitutional grounds with all the easily lampooned aspects of contemporary libertarianism. It’s a dishonest conflation perhaps advanced by some who have an agenda? What could that be besides defending Obama — even at this cost??