Academia, Columns, Congress, Constitutional Law, Free Speech, International, Media, Politics, Society, Supreme Court

10 Reasons The U.S. Is No Longer The Land Of The Free

Below is today’s column in the Sunday Washington Post.  The column addresses how the continued rollbacks on civil liberties in the United States conflicts with the view of the country as the land of the free.  If we are going to adopt Chinese legal principles, we should at least have the integrity to adopt one Chinese proverb: “The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names.”  We seem as a country to be in denial as to the implications of these laws and policies.  Whether we are viewed as a free country with authoritarian inclinations or an authoritarian nation with free aspirations (or some other hybrid definition), we are clearly not what we once were. [Update: in addition to the column below, a later column in the Washington Post explores more closely the loss of free speech rights in the West].

Every year, the State Department issues reports on individual rights in other countries, monitoring the passage of restrictive laws and regulations around the world. Iran, for example, has been criticized for denying fair public trials and limiting privacy, while Russia has been taken to task for undermining due process. Other countries have been condemned for the use of secret evidence and torture.

Even as we pass judgment on countries we consider unfree, Americans remain confident that any definition of a free nation must include their own — the land of free. Yet, the laws and practices of the land should shake that confidence. In the decade since Sept. 11, 2001, this country has comprehensively reduced civil liberties in the name of an expanded security state. The most recent example of this was the National Defense Authorization Act, signed Dec. 31, which allows for the indefinite detention of citizens. At what point does the reduction of individual rights in our country change how we define ourselves?

While each new national security power Washington has embraced was controversial when enacted, they are often discussed in isolation. But they don’t operate in isolation. They form a mosaic of powers under which our country could be considered, at least in part, authoritarian. Americans often proclaim our nation as a symbol of freedom to the world while dismissing nations such as Cuba and China as categorically unfree. Yet, objectively, we may be only half right. Those countries do lack basic individual rights such as due process, placing them outside any reasonable definition of “free,” but the United States now has much more in common with such regimes than anyone may like to admit.

These countries also have constitutions that purport to guarantee freedoms and rights. But their governments have broad discretion in denying those rights and few real avenues for challenges by citizens — precisely the problem with the new laws in this country.

The list of powers acquired by the U.S. government since 9/11 puts us in rather troubling company.

Assassination of U.S. citizens

President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)

Indefinite detention

Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism. While Sen. Carl Levin insisted the bill followed existing law “whatever the law is,” the Senate specifically rejected an amendment that would exempt citizens and the Administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal court. The Administration continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for “prolonged detention.”)

Arbitrary justice

The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections. Bush claimed this authority in 2001, and Obama has continued the practice. (Egypt and China have been denounced for maintaining separate military justice systems for selected defendants, including civilians.)

Warrantless searches

The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens’ finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records. The government can use “national security letters” to demand, without probable cause, that organizations turn over information on citizens — and order them not to reveal the disclosure to the affected party. (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan operate under laws that allow the government to engage in widespread discretionary surveillance.)

Secret evidence

The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts. It also forces the dismissal of cases against the United States by simply filing declarations that the cases would make the government reveal classified information that would harm national security — a claim made in a variety of privacy lawsuits and largely accepted by federal judges without question. Even legal opinions, cited as the basis for the government’s actions under the Bush and Obama administrations, have been classified. This allows the government to claim secret legal arguments to support secret proceedings using secret evidence. In addition, some cases never make it to court at all. The federal courts routinely deny constitutional challenges to policies and programs under a narrow definition of standing to bring a case.

War crimes

The world clamored for prosecutions of those responsible for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, but the Obama administration said in 2009 that it would not allow CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for such actions. This gutted not just treaty obligations but the Nuremberg principles of international law. When courts in countries such as Spain moved to investigate Bush officials for war crimes, the Obama administration reportedly urged foreign officials not to allow such cases to proceed, despite the fact that the United States has long claimed the same authority with regard to alleged war criminals in other countries. (Various nations have resisted investigations of officials accused of war crimes and torture. Some, such as Serbia and Chile, eventually relented to comply with international law; countries that have denied independent investigations include Iran, Syria and China.)

Secret court

The government has increased its use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has expanded its secret warrants to include individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations. In 2011, Obama renewed these powers, including allowing secret searches of individuals who are not part of an identifiable terrorist group. The administration has asserted the right to ignore congressional limits on such surveillance. (Pakistan places national security surveillance under the unchecked powers of the military or intelligence services.)

Immunity from judicial review

Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy. (Similarly, China has maintained sweeping immunity claims both inside and outside the country and routinely blocks lawsuits against private companies.)

Continual monitoring of citizens

The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review. It is not defending the power before the Supreme Court — a power described by Justice Anthony Kennedy as “Orwellian.” (Saudi Arabia has installed massive public surveillance systems, while Cuba is notorious for active monitoring of selected citizens.)

Extraordinary renditions

The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects. The Obama administration says it is not continuing the abuses of this practice under Bush, but it insists on the unfettered right to order such transfers — including the possible transfer of U.S. citizens.

These new laws have come with an infusion of money into an expanded security system on the state and federal levels, including more public surveillance cameras, tens of thousands of security personnel and a massive expansion of a terrorist-chasing bureaucracy.

Some politicians shrug and say these increased powers are merely a response to the times we live in. Thus, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) could declare in an interview last spring without objection that “free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war.” Of course, terrorism will never “surrender” and end this particular “war.”

Other politicians rationalize that, while such powers may exist, it really comes down to how they are used. This is a common response by liberals who cannot bring themselves to denounce Obama as they did Bush. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), for instance, has insisted that Congress is not making any decision on indefinite detention: “That is a decision which we leave where it belongs — in the executive branch.”

And in a signing statement with the defense authorization bill, Obama said he does not intend to use the latest power to indefinitely imprison citizens. Yet, he still accepted the power as a sort of regretful autocrat.

An authoritarian nation is defined not just by the use of authoritarian powers, but by the ability to use them. If a president can take away your freedom or your life on his own authority, all rights become little more than a discretionary grant subject to executive will.

The framers lived under autocratic rule and understood this danger better than we do. James Madison famously warned that we needed a system that did not depend on the good intentions or motivations of our rulers: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

Benjamin Franklin was more direct. In 1787, a Mrs. Powel confronted Franklin after the signing of the Constitution and asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got — a republic or a monarchy?” His response was a bit chilling: “A republic, Madam, if you can keep it.”

Since 9/11, we have created the very government the framers feared: a government with sweeping and largely unchecked powers resting on the hope that they will be used wisely.

The indefinite-detention provision in the defense authorization bill seemed to many civil libertarians like a betrayal by Obama. While the president had promised to veto the law over that provision, Levin, a sponsor of the bill, disclosed on the Senate floor that it was in fact the White House that approved the removal of any exception for citizens from indefinite detention.

Dishonesty from politicians is nothing new for Americans. The real question is whether we are lying to ourselves when we call this country the land of the free.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University.

Washington Post (Sunday) January 15, 2012

755 thoughts on “10 Reasons The U.S. Is No Longer The Land Of The Free”

    1. ANONYMOUSLY POSTED???!!! Bull! We have a chance to undo these losses of freedoms and slow or stop the onslaught of more & more! Yes, there will be some with sensetive posts in life that may have to go Anon. But the last 10 posts!!!! Is the blog making it easier to write Anon & hard to use a real or fictitious name? (If so I hope JT will correct that) Meanwhile, lets please have more people take responsibility for their blogs. You will be more effective & read all the more!
      By the way, there are two patriotic groups that are really doing something positive to save & take back our freedoms: they are the National Rifle Association and Citizen’s Commission On Human Rights. SUPPORT THESE TWO PLEASE! No other group comes close & those others that CALL themselves patriotic like100% of the armed forces, all those Eagles & other vet drinking clubs, are pretty much accidental traitors & not about to have an epiphany…

  3. Tactics that some know all too well:

    The Nightmarish Saga of Michael Fitzgibbons

    The case pitting the whisteblowing doc against Integrated HealthCare Holdings Inc. appears to be over

    Comments (2) By NICK SCHOU Thursday, Feb 21 2013

    http://www.ocweekly.com/2013-02-21/news/doctor-michael-fitzgibbons-integrated-healthcare-holdings-inc-western-medical-center-bruce-mogel-larry-b-anderson-mikey-delgado/full/

    Check out the first comment to the story. It’s happening from coast to coast.

  4. Resistance From a Cage: Julian Assange Speaks to Norwegian Journalist

    Friday, 01 March 2013 00:00

    By Eirik Vold

    http://truth-out.org/news/item/14835-resistance-from-a-cage-julian-assange-speaks-to-norwegian-journalist-eirik-vold

    Excerpt:

    As the bets keep rolling in, Assange makes the best out of life on 50 square meters. Meanwhile, WikiLeaks continues pumping out secret documents. In spite of mutual distrust, smearing and accusations of censorship, WikiLeaks and the establishment media hold on tight to each other. It still takes two to tango. WikiLeaks needs access to the public and newspapers need splashy headlines. According to Assange’s most recent numbers, there is a WikiLeaks-based article in almost every second issue of The New York Times. The tones might have soured, but neither can afford to stop dancing.

  7. The Dangerous Logic of the Bradley Manning Case

    BY YOCHAI BENKLER

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112554#

    Excerpt:

    If Bradley Manning is convicted of aiding the enemy, the introduction of a capital offense into the mix would dramatically elevate the threat to whistleblowers. The consequences for the ability of the press to perform its critical watchdog function in the national security arena will be dire. And then there is the principle of the thing. However technically defensible on the language of the statute, and however well-intentioned the individual prosecutors in this case may be, we have to look at ourselves in the mirror of this case and ask: Are we the America of Japanese Internment and Joseph McCarthy, or are we the America of Ida Tarbell and the Pentagon Papers? What kind of country makes communicating with the press for publication to the American public a death-eligible offense?

    What a coup for Al Qaeda, to have maimed our constitutional spirit to the point where we might become that nation.

    Yochai Benkler is a professor at Harvard Law School and co-Director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard.

  8. While there are a lot of good Anon postings, we are not yet at the stage where it is truly unsafe to have even a fictitious name. It soon may be, once martial law is declared; meanwhile a name gives more credibility & improves the communication. so needed to ward off the the crazy actions of our federal government, very much including the President & White House. I appreciate Dave using a name, but we all know how time consuming (& sometimes dangerous for our computer) clicking on links can be. Just trying to keep this debate moving forward, intent on putting the brakes on the Illuminati’s foul plans. Who is scared of using that word & why? Its more accurate than ‘we’ (totally wrong). America (whose America?) or even the Government or USA. I’m temporarily in the Philippines now; interesting how the US dollar goes down against the local Peso, month after month, year after year. Its a poor country, but building & commerce is everywhere.

  10. Thursday, Feb 28, 2013 10:30 AM EST

    Homeland security offers anything but
    The department is a black hole for tax dollars — and its funding could jeopardize our country’s infrastructure

    By Mattea Kramer

    http://www.salon.com/2013/02/28/tk_5_partner_4/

    Excerpt:

    Perhaps the strangest part of homeland security operations may be this: there isno agreed-upon definition for just what homeland security is. The funds Washington has poured into the concept will soon enough approach a trillion dollars and yet it’s a concept with no clear boundaries that no one can agree on. Worse yet, few are asking the hard questions about what security we actually need or how best to achieve it. Instead, Washington has built a sprawling bureaucracy riddled with problems and set it on autopilot.

    And that brings us to today. Budget cuts are in the pipeline for most federal programs, but many lawmakers vocally oppose any reductions in security funding. What’s painfully clear is this: the mere fact that a program is given the label of national or homeland security does not mean that its downsizing would compromise American safety. Overwhelming evidence of waste, duplication, and poor management suggests that Washington could spend far less on security, target it better, and be so much safer.

    Meanwhile, the same report that warned in early 2001 of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil also recommended redoubling funding for education in science and technology.

    In the current budget-cutting fever, the urge to protect boundless funding for national security programs by dismantling investment essential to this country’s greatness — including world-class education and infrastructure systems — is bound to be powerful. So whenever you hear the phrase “homeland security,” watch out: your long-term safety may be at risk.

  11. Last post, or two back confusing, but if this Bolton guy is saying that ( ‘we’ achieved our objectives in Iran) he’s a moron or a traitor. Perhaps an accidental traitor like so many Americans who served the wrong side. Helping the Illuminati is destroying the people! Don’t you get that!?

  13. Today:

    How the Bush administration sold the war – and we bought it

    We knew WMD intelligence was flawed, but there was a larger failure of officials, media and public to halt the neocon juggernaut

    by Valerie Plame Wilson and Joe Wilson

    Wednesday 27 February 2013 03.30 EST

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/27/bush-administration-sold-iraq-war

    Yesterday:

    Overthrowing Saddam Hussein was the right move for the US and its allies

    Opponents of the Iraq war continue to spread myths. The reality is the US achieved many of its goals in the war

    by John Bolton

    Tuesday 26 February 2013

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/26/iraq-war-was-justified

  14. Pretty great post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wished to say that I’ve truly enjoyed surfing around your blog posts. After all I’ll be
    subscribing in your feed and I hope you write once more
    soon!

  15. Glenn Greenwald on today’s decision re: warrantless eavesdropping

    Supreme Court shields warrantless eavesdropping law from constitutional challenge

    The five right-wing justices hand Obama a victory by accepting his DOJ’s secrecy-based demand for dismissal

    by Glenn Greenwald
    Tuesday 26 February 2013 16.40 EST

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/26/supreme-court-eavesdropping-law-doj-argument

    (The government continues to hide an extrajudicial program that would curl the hair of many.)

    —-

    Is the US maintaining death squads and torture militias in Afghanistan?

    Afghan President Hamid Karzai and local residents insist that the answer is yes

    by Glenn Greenwald

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/26/afghanistan-death-squads-torture-militas

    “A 2009 Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston, found as follows regarding Afghanistan:
    afghanistan un report

    That last line is key: “in the name of restoring the rule of law, heavily-armed internationals and their Afghan counterparts are wandering around conducting raids that too often result in killings and being held accountable by no one.”

    (A variation of this is “in play” on U.S. soil.)

    1. Gestapo is here!
      Here they come: After months of secret negotiations with the players who pushed SOPA, the major Internet Service Providers on the verge of implementing their “Six Strikes” plan to fight “online infringement”. With essentially no due process, AT&T, Cablevision Systems, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon will get on your case if you’re accused of violating intellectual property rights — and eventually even interfere with your ability to access the Internet. (You can contest accusations — if you fork over $35.)
      Click here to tell the ISPs to back down — or that you’ll look to take your business elsewhere:
      http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/six_strikes/#1?referring_akid=a8082986.2276272.XZlCVy&source=auto-taf
      After the first few supposed violations, they’ll alert you that your connection was engaging in behavior that they — the giant corporations that provide your Internet service — deem inappropriate.
      And then it gets really dicey: They can make it difficult for you to access the web, or start throttling down your connection.
      Click here to tell the ISPs to back down — and put them on notice:
      http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/six_strikes/#1?referring_akid=a8082986.2276272.XZlCVy&source=auto-taf
      From Wired:
      After four alerts, according to the program, “mitigation measures” may commence. They include “temporary reductions of Internet speeds, redirection to a landing page until the subscriber contacts the ISP to discuss the matter or reviews and responds to some educational information about copyright, or other measures (as specified in published policies) that the ISP may deem necessary to help resolve the matter.”
      That’s right: These mega-corporations now claim the authority to undermine your Internet access — and want to serve as judge, jury, and executioner. Tell them to back off — or that you’ll start looking for other places to bring your business.

  17. If anyone thinks that being able to say these things is freedom enough, think again! Its the last ditch of freedom. Beyond that the chance to speak up is gone! That’s why its important to wake up the average naive American before its completely too late! All things in life are gradient & not absolute. If a prisoner is permited to go to the bathroom, he is free to that degree. It’s irrelevant to the general subject because its definitely not free enough for a law abiding social person. America’s enemies are government, media & psychiatry, perhaps big pharma too. All need to be strongly reformed, except psychiatry, which should be immediately abolished, along with Stalin’s & Hitler’s death camps. No one doubts keeping the last two abolished; get the truth about psychiatry and there can be no other conclusion.

  18. Definitely believe that which you stated. Your favorite reason appeared to be on the net the easiest thing to be aware of.
    I say to you, I definitely get irked while people consider worries that they just do not know about.

    You managed to hit the nail upon the top as well as defined out the whole thing without having side effect , people can take a signal.

    Will likely be back to get more. Thanks

  19. Pingback: 10 Reasons The U.S. Is No Longer The Land Of The Free | The Freedom Watch

  20. mespo727272 1, January 15, 2012 at 12:14 pm

    anon nurse wrote:

    “We are most certainly not a free nation. Some citizens may be a position that affords them the relative luxury of feeling that they are free…”

    **********************

    mespo727272

    The mere fact that you feel no fear in positing this position publicly proves you are free. The fact that we may read it without censorship and either approve, disapprove, or ignore it without repercussion proves we are free, too. (said by mespo727272)

    ————

    Another naive American.

Comments are closed.