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
@Seamus: I am a non-hysterical liberal, I own guns too. I have voted in every Presidential election since Carter, and always for Democrats. I have never voted for a Republican. Our judges must declare a party, I typically vote for the Libertarian judges, on the grounds that at least in my area they are the least likely to engage in harsh sentences for drug violations. (I do not use drugs, alcohol or tobacco, but I think it is a civil liberty).
All of that said, I will vote for my first Republican ever if Ron Paul is the nominee. Otherwise, I will not vote for Obama, no matter what the fallout may be, just on the remote chance that gridlock might prevail. If Obama is re-elected, Republicans will not oppose the destruction of the Constitution and Democrats have an excuse to go along, they are following their leader.
I’d rather give Democrats an excuse to oppose and filibuster, frankly, and I think the defeat of Obama would be attributed to “weakness” and failing to sufficiently appease his base. The persistence of the outrage over the “public option” will come up, and I would hope that the defeat of Obama would signal to the House and Senate Democrats that there is only so far they can go, and would motivate them into entrenched opposition and legislative grid lock.
I really don’t know what to do to reverse the damage, but at least stopping the advance of the damage would be something. There is no chance of that if Obama gets another term. I voted for Obama twice. There will not be a third time, no matter who the Republican nominee is.
This sounds exactly like the administration’s argument that they wouldn’t support the original language because they believed the Executive Branch already possessed this power… of course, stated in a way that makes it kind of, sort of appear that they disagree with the language when they’re really just disagreeing with which branch of government “owns” the right to indefinite detention. Disgusting how so many news outlets our reporting this (only now) and only with the “he reluctantly signed it” caveat.
“[…] 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.”
OS,
funny how that works. The recall effort in Wisconsin has over 500,000 signatures and still climbing. Walker is going to be toast.
raff, when has committing a little fraud here and there stopped that bunch?
Up in Wisconsin, the Recall Walker folks have been threatened, assaulted, had their signs and petitions destroyed and the latest is death threats. But according to that O’Keefe fellow and his handlers, all the voter fraud is on the side of the poor, minorities and Democrats.
Swarthmore,
I don’t think Romney has a chance, without fraud.
Figure Obama has about a 50- 50 chance with Romney as the opponent. Romney’s ties to Wall St. are deep, and the unions don’t like him but with so many unmotivated voters he could win. Romney has already become a big time Iran hawk. If either Gingrich or Santorum is the nominee, then look for Paul or Bloomberg to run on the new American Way Party.
I’m going to raise the question I raised last week, with regard to something Prof Turley said on C-Span ( http://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/19/turley-on-c-span/ ) to wit: shortly after assuming office Obama decided noone would get to the right of him on national security issues. No real citation for this, but it certainly seems to have played out this way. The detention issue can be framed, first and foremost, as a national security issue.
As someone noted above, the Constitution doesn’t seem to be a real concern, merely a talking point with this administration, overall.
And, too, as was stated, election, election, election.
But I also am intrigued by the ‘motivation’ question and, as a practicing psychotherapist for 30 years, have lots of tantalizing clues and ideas. But, in actuality I doubt there is one primary psychological trait or practical consideration that explains all. As to whether he is simply a cynic, or some psychological ‘deviant’, or actually believes he is doing good . . . well, living in that bubble, with all the sycophants around, of course he believes he is doing right and good . Oh yeah, and it’s a great election strategy he must think and, after all, without O’s reelection our freedoms might be in jeopardy, doncha know.
I’m not so sure about the election strategy part — eviscerating the Constitution might not work so well. People got sick of it under Bush (except for the ~20% dead enders). Likely with Obama too. But of course Bush got his second term anyway. So might Obama.
I consider myself a non-hysterical liberal, and I’m a registered Democrat. I own guns. It’s time to buy more. I also imagine that the former sentences will one day allow the government to “disappear” me. Fuck Obama. And yes, I’m still going to vote for him.
In other censored news–“MIDNIGHT UPDATE: Liberty Square has been retaken. New York, get down there now! See below for Live updates from the ground.”
Go to occupy wall street website for details of police brutality, arrests and courageous citizen action!
Ouch. Sick puppet.
Tony,
“it would be much more satisfying to crush the strong than to crush the weak”
It would also be a lot more work and much riskier than crushing the weak while sucking up to the strong. Never underestimate laziness, cowardice and/or obsequiousness as a motive.
Hugh and Tony C.,
I will render a guess that Obama signed it in order to improve his reelection chances. According to his “advisors” he has to stay tough on terrorism! But those same advisors just don’t seem to give a rats ass about the Constitution. But, as I mentioned earlier, the vote in the Senate was one of the most Bipartisan efforts since Obama was elected.
Mazi’s???
@Tony C: You are correct. Comprehension was not an adequate choice.
I am, however, as curious as you appear to be as to his real motivations.
@Hugh: I think accusing Obama of a lack of “comprehension” is ridiculous, we knew when he was campaigning he taught Constitutional law, and taught it well according to both his university superiors and his students.
IMO, a simple egomaniacal power trip doesn’t explain the consistently far right preference; it would be much more satisfying to crush the strong than to crush the weak, and it would simultaneously make him a populist President beloved by the majority (that elected him to do that).
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/01/santorum-means-war-against-iran.html
angryman,
Just like Lt. Aldo Raine likes his Nazis in a uniform, the one thing about Mazis is that you can identify them by their excessive use of Minotaurs.
I was hoping for him to belt out an oldie like Offer Acceptance and Consideration, or at least something to describe the battle of the forms nightmare that is this case: http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2011/12/27/pay-what-you-want-businesses-sue-non-paying-customers/
@Will: Troublesome is the modern usage (turbulent cite is found in Knowles Oxford Dictionary of Quotations p. 370) but it’s all oral tradition.