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.
The parallels of 1933 and Nine 11 of 2001 are striking.
In Germany they had the arson fire of their parliament bldg, The Reichstag.
—they blamed the Communists and went after them. I wasnt a Communist and so I didnt object.
The ostensibly civilized President, von Hindenburg passed the Reichstag Decrees, which denuded civil and criminal law protections.
In Sept 2001 someone took down the Twin Towers, hit the Pentagon,
USA passes Patriot Act, goes to War in Iraq and elsewhere in Afghan, Pakistan, whereever they are found to get the Muslims; Cheney, Rumsfeld under direct order from Hindenburg (sorry Bush) orders the suspension of the Geneva Conventions and any Human Rights treaties to go after the bombers—
— they blamed the Muslims and went after them. I wasnt a Muslim and so I didnt object.
In Germany von Hindenburg gets replaced in an election by Hitler. The laws are in place which replaced the laws with draconian measures for der Fuhrer.
More laws and decrees to go around the laws of Germany. They went after the gypsies, the Communists, the Democrats, the jews, the bad catholics, the army loyal to the law, the lawyers loyal to the law, the judges loyal to the law. —I wasnt a gypsy, communist, democrat, jew, bad catholic, in the army, not a lawyer, not a judge, so I didnt object.
They fought a war and I served. I didnt object.
Germany loses the war. The allies convene trials for war crimes and crimes against humanity. I had been a loyal soldier, a loyal civil worker in my village in Dachau, a young studen, a Sgt named Schultz: I know Nothing! I knew nothing. I dont have a nose and didnt smell the burning dead bodies in the death camp. It was all those Nazi nuts.
Fast forward to 2012. I know nuthing!
Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles…..
America, the beautiful, for ever waves of rape….
Dont mind me I am just a TalkinDog.
let’s just complete the syllogism for those too shy or horrified:
“stripped of your citizenship”
hence, not an American citizen
ergo, eligible to be detained indefinitely
, , , , regardless of how many angels are dancing on the heads of NDAA authorized pins
This bill would nullify even the argument and, in practice, the effect of questioning the breadth and extent of indefinite detention under the NDAA. Just tidying up the noose for those who might have any remaining questions about who the masters are.
Like I’ve said, there is no political penalty for destroying constitutional rights as long as you wrap yourself in the flag while doing it.
re expatriation act
If by administrative ruling you are stripped of your citizenship; do you then have standing to be judged by a court?
DonS
“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.”
Yeah, representing the constituents might bring in campaign money, but otherwise NO SHEKELS. A eulogy is nice; a hundred mills or so is better.
Re Geneva conventions:
Someone (Chomsky??) points out that we sign conventions (and ratify also), but with reservations. A nice list of examples was provided.
One I remember well was the convention against torture (etc.).
Our reservatuib was that the CIA could be the torturing agency operatíng without restrictions or prosecutions related to the convention.
So that seems to provide the reason for needing a position taking by Woo (?) in order for other agencies to use the same torture techniques. LOL.
Robert Baers, a former CIA agent, quickly learned the Washington rules, after 25 years of derringdo in Kurdistan, Libanon, Tadjikestan, etc.
He provides insight into Congress, menus for campaign contributions for Clinton meets in the WH, NSC staff as lobbyists for corporations, etc. etc.
His book, “See No Evil” is otherwise portrays the field agents life, and is censored and approved by the CIA. A book which portrays the CIA’s fall, and its commensurate lack of agents and OTG resources on what’s happening in Iran and the rest of terrorist land.
No wonder the president is uninformed when satellites are supposed to read the minds of terrorists. Impossible so far.
Messpo727272
I love this statement you quoted:
“As early as in Bacon’s Abridgment, sect. 2, it was said that “a statute ought, upon the whole, to be so construed that, if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant.’ This rule has been repeated innumerable times.” Washington Market Co. v. Hoffman, [1879] USSC 96; 101 U.S. 112, [1879] USSC 96; , 25 L.Ed. 782 (1879).”
However, nothing is mentioned by intention to loosely define, intentionally meant to be source of contention, similarly for confusing, deceitful, deceptive, or by combination or extension of existing statutes (from 1917), etc, etc can bite your ass unexpectedly when it arbitrarily suits them. Or the arbitrary enforcement, using entrapment, doctored evidence, steered prosecutions etc. of mentally defectives.
Thank god there are good defenders. Preferably former prosecutors with connections in the relevant system of justice. I won’t say more—–for now.
Please see the following how this can affect any person citizen or non citizen even if he/she had no association with anything suspicious:
Enemy Expatriation Act
By Phillip Larrea
1/20/2012
http://www.examiner.com/business-commentary-in-sacramento/enemy-expatriation-act
Congress is considering authorization to declare any U.S. citizen an enemy, revoke their citizenship, thereby stripping them of any rights or recourse to due process,. and then expatriating these ‘enemies of the state’ to parts unknown. H.R. 3166 introduced by Representative Charles Dent (R-PA) in the House and co-sponsored in the Senate by Joe Lieberman (I-CT), the Enemy Expatriation Act, has been wending its way through Congress since October- just in case NDAA didn’t make it through, apparently.
Hard to believe, isn’t it? Even more troublesome, is the question of why we are just hearing about this now. Where has the media been on this issue? Where was it on NDAA… on SOPA and PIPA? Mainstream media seems reluctant to take up these issues unless they have already ‘blown up’ on social media and citizen journals and blogs.
When we add up these various proposals, something wicked seems to be coming this way. NDAA and EEA authorize government to eliminate opposition. Think the Occupy Movement, for example. SOPA and PIPA would authorize a Federal agency to shut down any website or social media account that could be deemed as inciting civil unrest. And though, most Americans celebrated the grassroots campaign that stopped PIPA and SOPA in their tracks, neither of these proposed legislations are dead. Just delayed… like NDAA.
What is going on? Are we in mortal danger of imminent attack from some enemy, which our security agencies are constrained from making public? Is the government loading up on police authority in anticipation of information that, once revealed, will create such civil unrest as to be an existential threat from within? The Fourth Estate, the citizens’ branch of government, should be all over these civil rights issues. If they were, you wouldn’t be getting news like this, from someone like me.
Elaine,
I did see that Brown was a co-sponsor. I hope Elizabeth Warren hammers him on this piece of proposed legislation. It is one scary bill, but I can’t see how it would survive a court test.
Government could strip citizenship from Americans under Enemy Expatriation Act
http://rt.com/usa/news/expatriation-act-citizenship-ndaa-737/
Excerpt:
When Barack Obama inked the National Defense Authorization Act on New Year’s Eve, the president insisted that he wouldn’t use the terrifying legislation against American citizens. Another new law, however, could easily change all of that.
If the Enemy Expatriation Act passes in its current form, the legislation will let the government strike away citizenship for anyone engaged in hostilities, or supporting hostilities, against the United States. The law itself is rather brief, but in just a few words it warrants the US government to strip nationality status from anyone they identify as a threat.
What’s more, the government can decide to do so without bringing the suspected troublemaker before a court of law.
Under the legislation, “hostilities” are defined as “any conflict subject to the laws of war” and does not explicitly state that charges against suspects go to court.
rafflaw,
And Scott Brown of Massachusetts.
Gene,
I just found out about this bill tonight.
Wouldn’t you know that Lieberman is behind that other shoe.
Elaine,
Great link about the Enemy Expatriation Act. After seeing the NDAA, I was wondering where that other shoe was.
‘Enemy Expatriation Act’ Could Compound NDAA Threat to Citizen Rights
By ASHLEY PORTERO
1/24/12
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/286940/20120124/enemy-expatriation-act-bypass-citizen-protections-ndaa.htm
Excerpt:
As the controversy played out, legislation that could completely bypass the amended law was already in the works. In October, Rep. Charles Dent, R-Pa., and Sens. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., and Scott Brown, R-Mass., introduced a slight but powerful amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act that gives the government the authority to strip a person of their American citizenship if that person is accused or suspected of supporting “hostilities” against the U.S.
The amendment, known as the Enemy Expatriation Act, would allow the government to revoke Americans of their U.S. citizenship if they are accused or suspected of “engaging in, or purposefully or materially supporting, hostilities.” The sparse amendment, which defines “hostilities” as “any conflict subject to the laws of war,” does not say which government body — say a military tribunal or a congressional panel — has the power to brand suspected persons as hostiles.
Enemy Expatriation Act Could Circumvent NDAA Provision
Devon Chaffee, a legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the proposed amendment could theoretically be used to circumvent current laws, including the NDAA. If the amendment became law, the government could potentially revoke the citizenship of anyone deemed to be supporting hostilities against the U.S., thereby subjecting him or her to the indefinite military detention provision of the NDAA.
“Fortunately, it’s unlikely that Congress would pass something like this. If it did, the law would probably be found unconstitutional since the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress cannot revoke U.S. citizenship without a citizen’s consent,” Chaffee said.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1967 decision in Afroyim v. Rusk set that landmark precedent, ruling that the right of citizenship is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the nation’s high court actually overruled one of its own precedents set in Perez v. Brownell (1958), where it decided Congress is within its right to revoke U.S. citizenship in certain circumstances.
The Enemy Expatriation Act and the NDAA: Due Process Destroyed?
WRITTEN BY JOE WOLVERTON, II
WEDNESDAY, 25 JANUARY 2012
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/10655-the-enemy-expatriation-act-and-the-ndaa-due-process-destroyed
Excerpt:
In October, soon-to-be-retired Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) introduced an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act that would grant to the federal government the power to permanently divest an American of his citizenship if he is suspected of supporting “hostilities” against the homeland. A companion measure was brought to the House of Representatives by Congressman Charles Dent (R-Penn.).
The Enemy Expatriation Act, as the bills are known, augments the power of the federal government by allowing it to strip a suspect of his American citizenship based on nothing more than a suspicion of “engaging in, or purposefully or materially supporting, hostilities.” The text of the bill reads in relevant part:
A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality…committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
A careful reading of the preceding paragraphs reveals that as with so many of these unlawful acts which are suffocating the American body politic, cutting off the air of liberty by which we are made free, the key terms in this bill are intentionally vague so as to provide plenty of hazy cover for the federal government’s assault on the bedrock principles upon which our Republic was founded.
You are correct Gene. My fingers are too quick for the auto complete feature! I am glad that I am able to amuse you with my errors! 🙂
You could be right pete.
raff,
Auto-complete is not your friend. 😀 Sometimes hilariously so.