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
Especially those …..Mazis…..watch out for those guys.
Jill,
“The basis of all of this is our “leaders” and our own actions after 9/11. At that point “we the people” gave up on standing for the rule of law. In the US rule of law became the rule of fear.”
I agree and would add that 9/11 was most probably an act of colusion between the terrorists and GWBush. Such tactics as killing thousands of US citizens would not seem unreasonable to a man who was raised and trained by Nazis. His family’s history of support for and/or membership in the Nazi party is extensive.
Similar tactics were used extensively by the Nazis during WWII. Blaming crimes on Jews. Blaming the Poles for attacking Germany. Staging and/or spreading false rumors of atrocities against Germans living in the Czeckoslovakia. All designed to manipulate the German people to rage and indignity and convince them of the need to defend the Fatherland.
9/11 did what it was supposed to do. It scared the American people into agreeing to give up their rights. it was the first in a plan of denial and Fascist Authoritarianism and this new law is just another item in the plan. Obama signed it because he is being paid to betray America by the same people who pay the Republicans. Need I say the 1%. Of course GW is of the 1%.
You can pick any name for them that you wish. Mazis, Fascists, Authoritarians, Uber-wealthy Money Mongers, the 1%, Corporate Masters.
It doesn’t matter what name we give them or which they choose for themselves such as “The New World Order”. Their actions will be the same and their actions will take away our rights unless we Move to stop them. Their actions will cestroy our country and in short order.
The blatancy with which they now act is a telling change. It shows that they no longer feel the need to hide and everytime we let them get by with anything it strengthens them and encourages more blatant actions and more until suddenly; wee find that everyday we must all wake up to the morning prayer for our “Dear Leader”.
Joe,
The Congress will not impeach. They do not represent the people. They represent the same interests that The President represents:
Goldman-Sachs
Morgan Stanly
JP Morgan-Chase
Bank of America
Haliburton
Lockheed
Boing
General Dynamics
etc.
another sockpuppet…………………….
Hugh, yes Sir!!!
“troublesome” priest I believe.
I wonder how they’ll cover this on the 11th grade American Studies Regents Exam. Given the silence of the fourth estate (aka the media) it looks like Constitutional Law has become a meaningless elective; like basket weaving.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-fineman/george-w-bush-election-2012_b_1179655.html “Bush still reigns even if we can’t see him in Iowa”.
I said I wished it and I do. I didn’t tell her not to say things. There’s a big difference. Reread what I actually said. – Jill to Hugh
@Jill: Wishing is always the first step. “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” was not a command. Stop trying to pretend to an intellect you do not possess and you will cease insulting everyone else’s intelligence.
As William Shakespeare might have said it were he alive today….
Why do we Impeach Obama?? Let me count the reasons:
1. Starting Wars With No Congressional Authorization. (consult Jonathan Turley on that one…. I think he can help you on that one)
2. Assassinations of US Citizens With No Due Process or charges ever brought against them. (consult the US Constitution)
3. Using drones to kill Unknown Numbers of People in Unknown Numbers of Countries. (Apparently Obama really gets his kicks from this-consult Washington Post article on Obama illegal use of drones from last week)
4. NDAA Signing and Signing Statement- Both Impeachable Acts
So, save your outrage, Obama’s Impeachment (or forced resignation or removal by the 25th Amendement, Section 4 of Obama ) I S THE ONLY RESPONSE or shut up…..
Click on http://www.larouchepac.com/node/20069 or
http://www.larouchepac.com/node/20307
Interviews with Professor Francis Boyle on the Urgency of
Removing Obama NOW TO STOP WORLD WAR 3!
If it isn’t money or ego, what in the world is motivating him? – Tony C to Gene H
@Tony C: A complete lack of comprehension as to the role of the President under the Constitution and within this federal constitutional republic. To put it simply, he has always been and will always be on a power trip. Power for power’s sake.
Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power. – Abraham Lincoln
Obama is simply an impostor that never would have made it to the seat had Bush announced the land marking case sealed into the Hague Treaty as International Law by the Secretary of the Commonwealth, Pedro Cortez
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21486454/Complaint
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21486698/International-Claim-Oct-10-2004
that ended the cartelic rule of bait and switch plaguing the indigenous as well as the visitors of this land. THEY stand in united treason against all flesh and blood.
Hugh, Power, control, authoritarianism…….. glad you picked up on it.
“For a time, around 2004-2007, some people broke free of the rule of fear and began to criticize Bush for his unconstitutional policies. Since the reign of Obama, fear is again the coin of the realm.” — Jill
I was thinking about that the other day. I recall the war of words around the net where many of us were not loathe to utter the words facist, facism, totalitarian, etc. Then, what, lulled into complacency, hope with O, time/distance from the Cheney/Bush, neocon gang? Whatever.
In the meantime, what has changed around the issues of civil liberties and the national security state and the erosion of civil rights?
Nada. Things have, if anything, gotten objectively worse and, under the tweedledum fear-ridden dem administration none-the-less. So the MIC, corporatist, right wing fear mongering machine seems to have become a feature, not a temporary bug, in our decrepit democracy.
Those who think we pick on Obama too much need to recognize he seems plenty comfortable with the power projecting aspects of the imperial presidency in the defense, national security realm. That same element, essentially of bully pulpit, exists were he to use it to return to the rule of law. He doesn’t; and keeps burnishing his ‘center right’ creds. So, who you gonna believe, the hype or your own eyes?
Hugh,
They should both run for office. They can tell you sympathetically that you are screwed and we can use this screw driver anyway that suits us best. They can do this in the same bated breath.
Hugh,
I said I wished it and I do. I didn’t tell her not to say things. There’s a big difference. Reread what I actually said.
Tony,
“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?”
I’m pretty sure that greed and ego worship are bottomless pits. That being said, Obama – like the President and Vice President before him – may simply be evil. Evil is not a term that I bandy about lightly, but I think it certainly applies to Bush (possibly mitigated by stupidity) and Cheney (simply evil without a doubt), but it could certainly apply to Obama. A con man is no less a villain because their spiel was beguiling. There could also be unknown (to the public) benefits for aiding and abetting the rise of authoritarian fascism. It is possible to speculate on the nature of such benefits endlessly: from the mundane to the outer edges of science fiction. Ultimately, what his motivation is for pissing on the Constitution and civil rights is irrelevant in the light of his actions.
I am glad you do not support this law. I wish you would stop speaking out on behalf of the man who signed it. – Jill to Swarthmore mom
Agree with me or shut up?
@Swarthmore mom: Your opinion is valid and supported by the many links you’ve cited. I disagree with your opinion on President Obama but I would never deny your right to express it.
@Jill: Your own words to Swarthmore mom indicate a certain sympathy with the very law you profess to dislike.
I agree with Tony C. The basis of all of this is our “leaders” and our own actions after 9/11. At that point “we the people” gave up on standing for the rule of law. In the US rule of law became the rule of fear.
For a time, around 2004-2007, some people broke free of the rule of fear and began to criticize Bush for his unconstitutional policies. Since the reign of Obama, fear is again the coin of the realm.
It is why Democrats must be given the seven dwarfs and the Republican of the month club–so they will be afraid, very afraid of candidates who hold the exact same positions as their own candidate.
Only fear can cause people to be so open to propaganda that the truth no longer matters, that their own conscience no longer matters, that harming others is meaningless, that they cannot see that voting for an authoritarian is voting for an authoritarian.
Until we quit being afraid and regain our conscience this will be a police state.
Do they even have a clue? Of course not. To be a president and be clueless is like thinking George Bush understood economics, they just don’t get it.