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
JamesUSMC 1, January 3, 2012 at 3:45 am
You guys are as bad as the republicans trying to find conspiracy and government authoritariansism around every corner.
===========================================
Most experts agree with the expert who posted this, Professor Turley.
Your military training is a questionable source for expertise in this area.
You guys are as bad as the republicans trying to find conspiracy and government authoritariansism around every corner. NDAA has passed every year for the last 48 years. It is nothing more than a military budget appropriations bill. I have perused this bill and found it to be no more detrimental to American civil liberties than any of the past authorization bills. If you choose to live in fear then please feel free to join the republican party.
What you should be concerning yourself with is the Supreme Court ruling that Corporations are entities that have freedom of speech just the same as any American citizen or that Corporations can now legally contribute as much money as they see fit to any candidate they choose, or revolving door politicians/lobbyists who continue to maintain a stranglehold on
Congress even after these politicians leave office.
This is just another ploy by the right wing to divert attention away from the real issues, that movements such as OWS and other grassroots organizations, such as corporate corruption, political corruption, bailing out companies deemed to big to fail while our small business are choked out of existance by government and multinational corporations.
If you guys fall for this,then the next Iraq war that comes down the pike, you will buy hook line and sinker just like every other time republicans used this tactic. They used it in the 50’s with McCarthy leading the way looking for “reds”. They used it in Korea which ended up dividing the korean peninsula into two nations. They used it in Cuba by trying to overthrow their dictator and replace him with Castro and when he wouldn’t cower to American dominance, he brought in the russians for self defense and we have been starving those people ever since. We used this tactic again in Vietnam telling the American people that Americans were attacked in the Bay of Tonkin only to find out decades later it was a lie just like WMD’s in Iraq. There have been 35+ military conflicts since WWII including assassinations and the overthrowing of sovereign governments, in order to wield control over those governments.
The only way that the Republicans can win is to use the age old strategy of fear to divide us so that we are more easily manipulated. And every time one of their schemes blows up in their face, they immediately have another one ready to put into action.
The military is not preparing to come knocking on your door, There never were any WMD’s, The President is not from Kenya and he is not using someone else’s social security number. The tooth fairy, santa clause and the easter bunny are not real either. The more we continue to fall for these tactics, the more they will continue to send out propoganda to divide us. They promote right wing propoganda because THEY FEAR US, “the people”, as well they should. They fear that we are finally seeing through all of their smoke and mirrors. They fear that we are a threat to their livelihoods and careers. The people should never fear it’s government, the government should fear it’s people.
The greates hoax ever played on mankind was when the devil convinced us that he doesn’t exits. If you take most of the really unimaginably stupid stuff the right says and make it irrelavent, then they will have nothing to hide behind any longer and can be exposed for what they truley are. Mindless, ignorant neocons who only have their personal interests in mind and not the interests of the American public as a whole. They don’t want everyone to share the same freedoms that they share and they feel it is their personal responsibility to make sure that minorities and gays and anybody else who does not think or look like them, do not get those rights. And if we are willing to fight for those rights they want to make sure we have to fight to the point that they think we will give up our endeavors.
They consistantly claim victory on every issue even before the fight has begun. Why do you think that is? It is to intimidate us into believing that our cause is not worthy or it isn’t justified. That’s why they make the odds seem so insurmountable, to test our resolve, to break our spirit, to keep things just as they are.
You can read into anything, whatever doomsday scenario you choose but be warned. We have a common enemy and he is right in front of us. And we can ill-afford to take our sights off of him. We can no longer be divided by lies and misinformation from the right. Especially when they are wrong.
Here is some material from the U.S. Holocaust Museum on the Reichstag Fire Decrees and President Hindenburg:
“Though the origins of the fire are still unclear, in a propaganda maneuver, the coalition government (Nazis and the German Nationalist People’s Party) blamed the Communists. They exploited the Reichstag fire to secure President von Hindenburg’s approval for an emergency decree, the Decree for the Protection of the People and the State of February 28. Popularly known as the Reichstag Fire Decree, the regulations suspended the right to assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and other constitutional protections, including all restraints on police investigations.
Justified on the false premise that the Communists were planning an uprising to overthrow the state, the Reichstag Fire Decree permitted the regime to arrest and incarcerate political opponents without specific charge, dissolve political organizations, and to suppress publications. It also gave the central government the authority to overrule state and local laws and overthrow state and local governments.”
Carol,
I agree that OWS is a good start.
Oh, it might seem to be a bit over reaching to analogize the Reichstag Fire Decrees with the Defense Authorization Act of this year, and in the years since 9/11. On the other hand it was not Hitler who passed the Decrees which divested Germany of civil liberties. It was Von Hindenberg. He, like Bush, left office freely. He left Germany and hence Europe exposed to the tyranny which followed.
We Americans felt saintly enough to prosecute various Germans, as well as other Nazi collaborators, and the one trial which stands out is The Judges Trial. The analogy today is sublime. They were at war, Our statute just enacted says we are at war. The Reichstag Fire Decrees obviated civil rights protections to go after the great evils. As does the Bill just signed by Obama.
Folks in America had better start some self examination here. There is still a courtroom in Nuremberg. The rest of the world at some point may just decide to put it to use. A drone by another name is the V-2. How diferent is the Muslim prisoner today from prisoner seventy years ago who was a gypsie or jew. But they blew up the World Trade Center Twin Towers the statute just signed by President Obama says and they are still on the loose. But they burned the Reichstag, the Reichstag Fire Decrees said….. But our President is no Hitler, the naysayers smirk and say. Von Hindenburg was not Hitler I say.
Never again.
–Liberty1st.
Rafflaw, sad but true or through the potential loss of their lives or the life(s) of someone they love. The Vietnam protests happened, in part (I believe) because everyone had potential loss, the draft meaning anyone’s son, nephew, friend, could be drafted. Suddenly we were all effected. I think OWS has somewhat started down that path. I feel citizens united ignited it but OWS is also pocketbook (and I am sure some would say tea party too.)
(Cant find post with the ? but me too, yes, yes, and yes.
Rights are not rights if they can be ignored, abridged, suspended or otherwise infringed upon
saw that at a site i lurk at
http://www.rangeragainstwar.blogspot.com/
don’t know if they’re his words or someone else s. seemed to fit though.
Carol,
I agree that most people don’t understand or care about civil rights issues. You can get their attention through their pocketbooks.
Swathmore Mom, they rely on a low turnout. (I would not be surprised at all if they have turned on women)
I read these wonderfully literate and well parsed posts here and am astounded at the profundity and thought that goes into them; but the truth is the population at large does not care. They do not vote so that the presidential ‘mandate’ is essentially meaningless. Bush won with 51% of the vote in 2001 with a 51% * voter turnout so his mandate, that the media by and large affirmed, was from essentially 1/4th of the population.
As long as people do not care this bill, as well as all the parts of the “patriot” Act that infringe on our civil rights, have and will continue to easily become the law of the land. When more of the country wakes up to what they have lost hopefully it will not be too late to turn the tide (assuming that it is not already).
*(http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html)
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/02/final-curtain-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-of-citizens-into-law-as-final-act-of-2011/
We (ACLU of Oregon) had a birthday party for the 220th Anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights on 12/15/11 … Who knew that we could have scheduled the funeral for a mere fortnight later?
I wonder if this has anything to do with concealed and/or secluded concentration camp-like facilities spotted around the United States.
Mespo: “Also there is no radicalized para-military force attached to either party used to intimidate those with whom they disagree.”
***
Well, there is the FBI and their pesky Administrative Security Letters and the authority of other government agencies to use Administrative Subpoenas. We really can’t know how effective they and their users are at intimidation because its illegal and punishable by incarceration for victims of such letters to disclose that they are/were a target. Unless that is, they receive permission to make such disclosures from the inquiring agency.
My dad was a very politically aware and active guy. About a couple of years before he died he started to lose his ability to follow and remember an argument. (He lived to be 93 so he had a good run of it, all and all.) So when I was discussing the 2008 election with him and the erosion of the Bil of Rights he said he just couldn’t follow what was going on; too much information. I encapsulated it thus: well pop, they’re taking us back to 1930…in Germany. I believed so then and still do.
I think to minimize the use of government agency tools like Security Letters (and the expanded ability to gather information on citizens post-911) to intimidate or even blackmail people because such agencies are not overtly para-military in nature is verging on faith-based thinking. We are both old enough to remember what J Edgar did with old-school shoe leather and file folders.
——-
Excellent info-graphic:
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/surveillance-under-patriot-act
—-
“The Justice Department’s Inspector General has reported that between 2003 and 2006, the FBI issued nearly 200,000 NSLs.”
http://www.aclu.org/national-security-technology-and-liberty/national-security-letters
Since fascism has been brought up in the comments, and Godwin’s law has been invoked, I will add this tidbit I learned about today. It appears the group Anonymous has decided to take on the Neo-Nazis. The voice over is computer generated and appears to have been translated into English from German. One intelligence expert of my acquaintance thinks it has also been run through an automatic translation of either French or Spanish as well, possibly to further disguise the original writer. Some of those people are dangerous, and Anonymous has learned a lot from their experiences with the Zeta drug cartel.
Here is their just released video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YBkiFnuwZUw#!
For more on this with some comments, Horace Boothroyd III has a story up. I have come to the conclusion that since the OWS protests started, Horace has given up the luxury of sleeping. He seems to be on top of all the interesting breaking stories.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/02/1050961/-Operation-Blitzkrieg:Anonymous-Takes-on-Neo-Nazis
Gene:
There are always risks and the law is always subject to the intellectual integrity of the men and women who administer it. Soviet Russia’s Constitution guranteed free speech but no one took responsibility or had the courage to enforce the provision. Bottom line is that our freedom depends on the leaders we select. If that fails, our loss of freedom falls squarely on our shoulders.
To think that Obama is not capable of exceeding the powers vested in the president, just look at the last Bush. He clearly does not understand the constitution of the United States of America.
mespo,
While I agree with your technical dissection of the statute (and did a couple of weeks ago when you first mentioned it in passing), I think the problem here is the creation of a possible base for some fascist dipstick at the OLC like Bybee or Yoo to make an argument for indefinite detention. It’s not like the the White House hasn’t relied on specious and suspect legal reasoning for justifying criminal and civil wrongs in recent history. This is a hook on which they could hang a coat. To drastically shift metaphors, it’s not the pebble that kills you. It’s the avalanche. Erosion is erosion. As you say, it may be neither logical nor likely as a matter of statutory construction, but that does not mean impossible and any legal basis that could be used to rationalize future bad acts at this point only serves to weaken the structural integrity of civil rights in general.
As to this statement? “While there are always threats of facism, there are not enough signs to conclude it’s by design or inevitable.” I think there is pretty good evidence to conclude that it is by design – just look at the corporatism that went into the “decisions” to not prosecute the previous administration for war crimes and sit quietly as both Halliburton and Blackwater fled the jurisdiction in what can only be described as a blatant flight from prosecution, although I will agree that inevitability is still undecided.
Love the article.
My only quibble is this gibberish:
You do not “support our troops” by denying the principles for which they
are fighting.
US troops, with rare exception, fight to serve Imperial need for resource control and extraction. To write such an absurdly naive sentence after so many war crime sprees(Not in any specific order: Panama, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Mexico, China, Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, Cuba, North America etc..) is quite astonishing. It’s nice rhetoric. But the history of US military action in the real world, beyond idylls of patriotic idolatry and rank nationalism, displays the endless abattoir of Capital’s expansion.