After my recent column on “Ten Reasons The U.S. Is No Longer The Land Of The Free,” I ran a response to claims made by Senator Carl Levin (D., Mich.) who was the main sponsor of the legislation including the indefinite detention provisions. Levin has now run a letter to the editor in response to my column that I believe is highly misleading and leaves readers with a false impression of both the law and my column.
Here is letter by Sen. Levin this morning:
In his Jan. 15 Outlook commentary, “Ten reasons we’re no longer the land of the free,” Jonathan Turley mischaracterized a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 that reaffirms the authority of the military to detain individuals who join al-Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces, and who attack the United States.
Mr. Turley disputed the Obama administration, which said that, with regard to U.S. citizens who fall in that category, “this provision only codified existing law,” i.e., it does not add new law to that issue. But Mr. Turley omitted the language in the act itself, which expressly states that “nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”
Carl Levin, Washington
The writer, a Democrat from Michigan, is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
There are a number of problems with this objection. First, the column that was printed noted that “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.”
Second, the language cited by Levin has been ridiculed by civil libertarians as meaningless rhetoric designed to give members political cover after various members denounced the legislation as allowing indefinite detention of citizens. Without repeating the prior analysis, Levin (who assures that the law will be followed “whatever it is”) personally noted that the Administration demanded that there be no exception for citizens from indefinite detention. 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 fact that the Senate put a clear exemption in the mandatory detention provision for citizens but opted not to simply include the same provision in the discretionary detention provision reinforces this meaning. Moreover, the same Senators who voted to deny any exemption proceeded to vote for this language — clearly indicating that it did not offer such protection for citizens.
Most importantly, Levin and others are seeking to deny the authority that the President just acknowledged in his signing statement. Obama stated “I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” He does not deny that he has such authority . . . only that he does not intend to use it.
The only thing more disturbing than the provision itself is the effort of members to avoid responsibility for the provision — arguing that the civil liberties community and a wide variety of experts (as well as dozens of members of Congress) simply did not read the bill. The power, he suggests, was not given to the President despite the President’s assurance that he will not use it.
Notably, the earlier version of the column did not quote Levin on this point. I added the language before it went to print because Levin donors sent me a fax sent out by his office advancing this argument. The entire premise of both the early version and published version is that the effort to protect citizens was defeated by the Senate.
As I mentioned earlier, I often agree with Levin. However, the letter continues an effort to suggest to readers that this question is expressly answered in the bill. The clear effort is to dismiss the view of civil libertarians and members as ill-informed and portray the concern over civil liberties as baseless. I am not sure what is worse: exposing citizens to indefinite detention or misleading citizens that they need not be concerned because the Congress has their back.
Aspartame should be “as part “. It has been a long week.
raff
only if someone not being detained sees it.
Elaine,
I am aware of the Canadian incident, but I am not aware of a citizen grabbed aspartame of the rendition. I too am a skeptic, but the powers that be will have a more difficult time rendering a citizen.
“Call me a skeptic.” (Elaine)
Yes, but,I would call you an outraged skeptic. Which any humanitarian might well be. But, too often, we are all so co-opted by the cushy lives we lead, or aspire to lead, that we are afraid to denounce the system because we are grateful for the crumbs we are given from the elite’s table, and/or don’t think we, as the true inheritors of this so-called democracy, deserve more.
Outrage on. Our governing class is either too stupid, or too coopted themselves to remember that governing on behalf of all the people, not some Wall Street driven model, is their charge.
LDS,
Hey, you came close to a cogent reply this time. Congratulations.
The key term above being “close”.
They also have another term for conflation of the degree you’re displaying.
Paranoia.
By educating people on how their rights are under attack, JT is providing an invaluable public service – even if his message is carried by mass media with a proclivity for propaganda. You are indeed conflating message/messenger and the medium. He is one of the very few anti-propagandists on the air when it comes to discussing your rights. His method of combating the Big Lie of propaganda? Education and analysis. That you cannot make that distinction is your intellectual failure to bear.
Thanks for playing!
Gene I Am not playing here. Just maybe that is the petard confusion. I Am not hoist. Not trying to be. Oh there is a petard I Am wielding. But the fact you or anyone else here cannot recognize it is the very proof of its need.
No one, and I mean no one that makes it to the big screen has even touched on the base problem, did i say no one?
Living Soul Life works by consent, and that properly by fully disclosed ramification.
The law says anyone who enters an agreement without knowing the details is insane. To your advantage, the law says one who is insane cannot be held responsible. You, no longer have that option, as time as you know it is coming to a close. Since the Hague this planet changed course for specific universal reason. Do you know what that is? I think not, but you can and only if you remove the alter.
When one considers that half the species on the planet will be gone in 100 years, at the rate it is going right now, it takes thought to another level high above intellectual masturbation.
America has been a so called nation that has functioned on bonds; resulting in its inhabitants being put into bondage. Your bond is your word. No one else’s, yet, is this the case with You? If You are honest, You have found yourself doing much You don’t choose to do. You endure what is not your burden that has come about by others choices.
All Living Souls on the planet have to search themselves, and then unite in natural procedure to correct One’s view and purpose as all have strayed in some way. That’s it, that’s my point. And One has made that possible. Turley or anyone else in the ‘public eye’ that know about it won’t dare touch on it. Do you know why? I think not, as you and the rest on this thread are busy making themselves feel good, and a part of the solution, yet none of you have one or even a clue where to find it.
I do. And my whole purpose for being here is to find one, or some that care enough to find out.
rafflaw,
It was used on at least one Canadian citizen. He was kidnaped at an airport in the US and taken to a black site and tortured for months. He later won a financial settlement from his own government. I think extraordinary rendition speaks to who we are as a country. Has our country adhered to the Geneva Conventions in recent years? Have we brought suspected war criminals to trial? If our president can target citizens of this country for killing and if American citizens can be detained indefinitely, who is to say our government will abide by past court rulings? Call me a skeptic.
Gene, “Educating people on the steady erosion of their Constitutional rights is doing something. The first step in fixing any problem is knowing of the problem’s existence. Many Americans simply don’t know their rights much less when their rights are being attacked.”
No. bringing the truth to the table of how to eradicate the eradicators is what the people need, not a bunch of bs rhetoric about a system broke from the get, based entirely on deception.
Do you think for one minute that your ‘friend’ Turley would be on major network broadcasting if they didn’t support him and the propaganda he spreads that actually supports the impostor laws, and lawmen. Please.
Its not Conflation, its connection, and you know it but won’t admit it to yourself, as it would require you to accept being wrong about much.
Quotes from Prof. Turley’s earlier post on this subject are included in this American Thinker article, “Citizenship: Easy Come, Easy Go.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/citizenship_easy_come_easy_goes.html
The AT piece discusses the unavoidable fact that enemy combatants such as Hamdi and Awlaki, presumably cases that both the NDAA detention provisions as well as the recently proposed Expatriation Act were designed to address, were actually DUAL US citizens because of the controversial birthright citizenship practice.
The article addresses that practice, the resulting issues of dual citizenship at birth, and the fact that stripping individuals such as Hamdi or Awlaki of their US citizenship would not render them stateless.
In addition, if the birthright citizenship practice finds its basis in the 1898 ruling of Wong Kim Ark, it must be noted that neither Hamdi nor Awlaki had parents who were permanently domiciled in the US. The article also discusses the fact that Ark’s parents, because of the Burlingame Treaty in effect at that time, did not retain their allegiance to China, therefore Ark was theoretically not born with dual citizenship. It is difficult to argue that the interpretation of the 14th amendment under the really very narrow ruling of WKA mandates automatic citizenship for individuals like Hamdi or Awlaki.
Rather than addressing the problems to our national security caused by our toleration of dual citizenship or the “nonsense” of birthright citizenship (Judge Posner’s description, not mine—see the article), our Congress instead passes legislation that endangers the rights and protections of citizenship of all of us…
Meso writes:
Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions that applies to enemy combatants specifies “The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”
‘Civilized’ is the perinent word here. When we gave up shame in favor of notoriety and 24/7 infotainment, we opted for barbarism. The rule of law has become a quaint morsel on the scrap heap of history.
Elaine,
Not to butt in, but I do not believe the extraordinary rendition program was used on citizens. That doesn’t mean that they couldn’t try.
mespo,
Have we followed the protocols of the Geneva Conventions in recent years? What about the practice of extraordinary rendition? People have been kidnaped, “diasppeared,” and tortured in black sites. Those individuals had no access to counsel. I guess I’m not as trusting as you that our country will abide by the rules we set in place.
Anyone who trusts those murderers is part and parcel to their crime.
Elaine M:
Hamdi says citizen enemy combatants have the right to counsel. See my comment/question to Justice Holmes. Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions that applies to enemy combatants specifies “The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” This includes the right to counsel. SCOTUS’ decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfield confirms the application of Article III to detainees.
Justice Holmes:
Where in the NDAA do you see a repeal of SCOTUS’ opinion in Hamdi guaranteeing detainees the right to counsel? O’Connor wrote there ” Hamdi unquestionably has the right to access to counsel in connection with the proceedings on remand.”
We cannot wait for our time to come and then pose an objection. When they arrested Manning and put him in solitary confinement and obscene punishment prior to his conviction, I did not say anything because I was not Manning. When they tortured those people in Abu Grabve (sp) I did not say anything because I was not a Muslim and tortured there. When Rumsfeld announced that the Geneva Conventions were no longer in force I did not say anything. Levin is like von Hindenburg with his Rechstag Fire Decrees. Dont worry folks: these are not aimed at you. When Mespos time comes and they come for him there wont be anyone left to stand up for him. Except his dog. All you folks need dogs.
i am curious to see if anyone read David Coombs, Esq’s account of pfc manning’s day.
his cell is 6 ft by 12 ft.
i could lay on the floor of his cell with my head touching one wall and my feet touching the other.
x2 for the length
The cell has a bed, a drinking fountain, and a toilet.
for those of you who have never seen the inside of a cell the toilet and drinking fountain they are referring to is a combo toilet with a sink built on the back. to drink you put your finger in the faucet, turn the water on and a stream of water shoots out of a hole in the top of the faucet. your face is aprox two ft over the top of your toilet as you drink.
The guards at the confinement facility are professional. At no time have they tried to bully, harass, or embarrass PFC Manning. Given the nature of their job, however, they do not engage in conversation with PFC Manning.
no one speaks to him except to bark orders. all week (except weekends)
i bet the professional guards have a nickname or a pet name they refer to him as.
He is allowed to have any combination of up to 15 books or magazines. He must request the book or magazine by name. Once the book or magazine has been reviewed by the literary board at the confinement facility, and approved, he is allowed to have someone on his approved list send it to him.
wonder how long that takes
this has been his life every day since july 2010
as near as i can find he still does not have a trial date
Lawfare (Wittes and Chesney) say about section 1022:
“The provision exempts U.S. citizens entirely, …..”
I thought that was what the contention was all about.
?????
Seems they think that Mespo 727272 and I are exempt from compulsory military detention under this section. (Discretionary?)
Cannot see that their interpretation/presentation of 1021 and 1023 say otherwise re U:S: citizen detention. But perhaps the powers under AUMF gives Obama that prerogative. The portion cited makes no reference to citizenship.
Mespo,
Oh, your right. I guess everything is on the up and up. Those detention centers dont sound bad at all.
Steeped as some of you are in Constitutional law, I wonder if your studies or readings included this interpretation?
http://www.sobran.com/articles/tyranny.shtml
Now I see no way to go back to the world of the Founding Fathers, as Sobran would. But it is indeed interesting, even for those of us who grown up post-Great Depression with Roosevelt’s constitutionally contested laws, to consider how far we have departed from requiring Constitutional amendments to expand powers of all three branches.
Take a look if you’re inclined to see another view.
It would, IMHO, be nice if we hadn’t so many laws which challenge our Bill of Rights: and as it further says, all rights not enumerated but reserved to the people.
mespo,
Usually we agree….I still think You have the right to your Opinions….and I still Think that Brennan’s Opinions are some of the best and well reasoned…. and like I said…I did not agree with him on everything….But 99.9 % when the Constitution was involved….He was right….
AN,
to “AY,
Regarding:
“but for the bad conduct of the actors in the first place…they would never be in headlights or in the purview of law enforcement…” (in explaining mespo’s position, not your own)
This just isn’t true, of course… Good, decent, law-abiding people — good Americans — are being caught up in wicked snares, with no apparent way out… Even the innocent are getting caught in the headlights… as you already know… In some cases, if one gets on the wrong side of someone in law enforcement… well, I don’t need to spell it out… you get it…”
That I understand all too well…Then it is up to the Judge to not be a part of the problem…Unfortunately….Good People do get caught up in it…I recall Oliver North…He was doing as ORDERED…..RWR nor Bush could recall…I think the famous “I Don’t Remember” came into use and accepted….
Unfortunately….Good people do get caught in the Cops WEBs.I for one am very much concerned with those as well…