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
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/02/ron-paul-santorum-is-very-liberal/
I also want to thank you for covering this issue. Drudge finally coverered it half hazardly in small letters which were linked to an AP article that was filtering the real damage this President has caused by signing this NDAA into the law of the land.
It is a dark day in America.
And still people sleep. . .
Thank you for your voice.
We stand with you.
That is the truth. Anyone that still resides in Elwood Park should be. The crime rate is awful and the houses are way to small.
TonyC,
So who is the REAL progressive? Ron Paul?
Hugh, The sockpuppet is certifiable.
Tony C, Much of the discussion is under the “Biden threat laments the lethargy of democratic voters.” You blast democrats in general but particularly Feingold and Kucinich. Here is what you had to say about Kucinich: “Kucinich is blocking the seat from somebody that would actually use their constitutionally granted power to make something happen”. Your criticism of Feingold is even harsher. Kucinich did not face much of a challenge and easily won, but Feingold was swept out by the tea party republicans in Wisconsin.
@Swarthmore: I did say Kucinich should go, he got rolled by Obama on the Patriot Act, or did you forget that? Besides that, Kucinich is incompetent, he has never passed a single progressive piece of legislation. He is a placeholder.
As for Feingold, you will recall I conceded he was the least of the offenders, but he failed to filibuster, put a hold on, or exercise ANY of his considerable Senatorial powers against the Patriot Act, and he KNEW his NAY vote was entirely symbolic and would have no effect whatsoever. In the end he got rolled too, it was threats that prevented him from going any further.
I will say the same thing about Al Franken now: After criticizing the Patriot Act as unconstitutional, he voted to extend it! I had hopes for Franken, but in my eyes he has betrayed the Constitution and is just another lying, unprincipled politician. In my eyes there is no excuse for not doing everything in one’s power to stop the degradation of civil liberties. I believe in the social safety net and I have no problem with taxes high enough to support it, but I have priorities, and Constitutional Rights come first no matter how much that may hurt my other priorities. Without Constittutional rights, the rest is doomed anyway.
You still seem to be baffled by the entire idea, so what if progressives lost to tea partiers? The entire idea is that the corrupt and unprincipled have to lose for us to have any chance to get somebody with progressive principles in the seat: Who did you think they would lose to? A Democrat posing as a Republican?
Wake UP! I never said THIS cycle would be better, I said the only chance to GET better was to suffer through a loss in order to open the seat to a REAL progressive with principles.
@Swarthmore mom: I will do my own research and look at the archives. If it proves to be that Tony C was advocating Dennis Kucinich’s defeat then his present support for Ron Paul comes as no real surprise.
@Pietro2: I have only been here for a few months but in that time I have come to understand the use of sock puppets. You are fooling no one.
Tony,
Remember you cannot argue with someone who has proven that they are biased and batshit crazy. They are conscienciousless, they have not the capacity to understand. It is like trying to argue with someone that they are Jesus. You can try all you want. Keep up the fight.
Tony C. We got rid of some progressives and they were replaced by tea partyers. You said that even Kucinich should go. That is not a lie. Some day I will go back and get the quotes but I don’t have time now.
@Swarthmore: You are lying. In 2010 I did not say that “things would get better,” I said that if you do not punish bad actors they will continue to be bad actors, and our only chance of things getting better was to get rid of the incumbents and let things get WORSE, so that new Democratic candidates would have a chance at the seats of the corrupted Democractic incumbents.
I still believe that is the only chance of things getting better, because no new Democrat has the slightest chance of beating a Democratic incumbent in a primary, but a new Democrat does have a chance of beating a one-term Republican if the district is split enough that a Democrat was winning it in the past. Even if the former incumbent ran again, the proof that he lost to the now-incumbent Republican would put him at a big disadvantage in the Democratic primary. A new Democrat could win both the primary and general election, and potentially do a better job, as a freshman, of representing actual progressive or liberal principles.
The only thing that will wake up Democrats is the pain of Republicans fucking them over. What do you think happened in Wisconsin? I believe the Democrats will take it back, but whether they do or not they certainly got motivated by the bad acts of Republicans, didn’t they?
I am consistent in that I want the politicians that are destroying the Constitution to lose their elections, no matter which party they are in. I’d rather have iffy new blood than entrenched bad blood.
This is 2012, and we will have to see how many freshmen Republicans get ousted by a resurgence of progressive voters. I hope a lot of them.
You are lying when you say I claimed things would get better, I never did, and I have told you that repeatedly, so you are purposely misrepresenting me. My claim then, and now, is that voting for a corrupt or unprincipled politician because they are a Democrat gives them further license to be corrupt and unprincipled, and the only way to fix it is to punish it, even if that causes us pain for cycle. Letters do not work, petitions do not work, encouragement does not work, outrage does not work, nothing works if the politician figures you will vote for him no matter what. And the only way to replace a corrupt, incompetent, or self-serving back-stabbing incumbent is if he loses to the other party. There is no way to convert an unprincipled politician into a principled one, and there is no way to replace an unprincipled incumbent and keep the seat. Period. To think either thing is possible is pure fantasy.
That is what I said in 2010, and I reiterate it now.
Now Playing at A Website Near You:
“The Annals of NerObama.”
Click on http://www.larouchepac.com/node/21044
Obama, A Carbon Copy of Emperor Nero.
Tony C, Like in 2010 when you said that if Feingold and the democrats lost, things would get better. Didn’t seem to work out that way. At least you are consistent in that you always want the incumbent democrats to lose no matter who they are. – Swarthmore mom to Tony C
@Swarthmore mom: I did not realize Tony C was advocating the defeat of democrats like Feingold in 2010 as a means to improve the situation. That does put his obvious support for Ron Paul under a different light.
Hugh, I agree with you and gene on motive.
One thing that has changed the political landscape is Citizens United. The Super Pacs can take aim at anyone with no accountability. Much as I don’t like Gingrich they have destroyed him in Iowa and will play a huge role in 2012.
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. – Gene H to Tony
@Gene H: That is a most astute observation.
It is hard to tell a batshit crazy woman anything.
Tony C, Like in 2010 when you said that if Feingold and the democrats lost, things would get better. Didn’t seem to work out that way. At least you are consistent in that you always want the incumbent democrats to lose no matter who they are.
rafflaw 1, January 2, 2012 at 3:30 pm
… as I mentioned earlier, the vote in the Senate was one of the most Bipartisan efforts since Obama was elected.
===================================
That is the real eyebrow raiser.
The only time congress can be bipartisan is when they shred the Constitution to steal our human rights.
Not a sane picture, so we must consider what is inducting this insanity.