.
.
.
.
.
The lesser of two evils? Or the evil of two lessers? Do Liberals have a breaking point? Last year, the obscene National Defense Authorization Act allocating hundreds of billions in military spending attempted to embed the federal DREAM Act but the legislation never made it to President Obama‘s desk as Know Nothings (including 5 crucial Senate Democrats) shot it down before it had a chance to fly. In a measure of the political pulse of the nation, the xenophobia back then was much more palpable than the outcry now over dangerous infringements to civil liberties included in this year’s NDAA.
Obama campaigned on closing Guantanamo Bay (which he has, of course, failed to do) but that didn’t mean he had problems with the notion of indefinite detention itself. Instead, he is poised to codify it. With a stoke of a pen looming, there is absolutely no reason to entertain the notion of supporting President Obama’s re-election bid. None. Any apologist justification would inevitably and sadly end up like the one in the video below.
“It’s muddled whether it applies to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, but it’s clearly indefinite detention” constitutional law attorney Glenn Greenwald says of the NDAA “and there’s a very strong case to make that it includes U.S. citizens, as well, which, as we know, the Obama administration already claims anyway, and that’s what makes it so dangerous.” Human Rights Watch has released a condemnation with Executive Director Kenneth Roth stating, “By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial.”
In 1950, Harry Truman vetoed the Internal Security Act. Congress overrode it. In regards to the National Defense Authorization Act for the fiscal year 2012, they won’t even have to.
I couldn’t agree with you more…and the silence from much of the left is deafening.
As for American citizens on foreign soil, we already know that the Obama Administration is willing to have citizens ACCUSED of crimes assasinated, ie. Anwar al Awlaki…not to mention Awlaki’s 16-year-old son and his son’s cousin.
Where are all the “strict constitutionalists” and defenders of the Bill of Rights when you need them?
As Ralph Nader mentioned in a recent piece, an overwhelming majority of the “Tea Party” representatives in Congress voted for this thing. The baggers aren’t holding feet to the fire because they are a lot of hot air.
Liberals, had this been under Bush, would have been madder than a hornet’s nest. Most have pursed lips when Obama’s at the executive helm.
You think that we endorse this? The best argument that can be made for not vetoing it is only that NDAA’s are so “must pass” that they just don’t get vetoed (there may be an exception or two, but it’s rare if so) and that instead bad provisions get cut out by executive action or in court challenges.
I don’t like the notion that Obama thinks he has to sign it and I don’t like the notion that he’s probably right. But blaming Obama for this only encourages the people who are really pushing it, because they want to sow discord and see him fail, to do it more often. When smashing civil liberties pays politicial dividends for Republicans, guess what they do?
Well if that’s the case, comrade, I’d like to see a big public statement AND a Bush-style “signing statement” making it clear that he objects to that part of the bill, and how he is going to change it somehow thru “executive action.” And then see him do that. (Because he’s promised things before…)
That would work.
I’m also dismayed that so many Democrats, starting with Carl Levin, supported this. I thought WE were the party of civil liberties. Instead it was left to the Pauls father and son to speak out against it.
I miss Russ Feingold…
I think that that’s a good idea — and I haven’t seen discussion of a signing statement. This is exactly where one needs one.
I just sent the idea to Obama as well. Who knows…
Greg, there’s only one person responsible for Barack Obama’s signature, and that’s Barack Obama.
And Vern, I wouldn’t hold your breath for that signing statement. The Democratic party has become SO terrified of being labeled “weak on defense” that this sort of legislation is really the new normal.
Jeez, after getting Osama, Kaddafi, and all the rest.
I was also thinking about this “executive action” and realizing that it could easily be reversed by the next President who could very well be another Bush or worse.
Really? Well, Republicans hope that you feel that way. That’s why they pull all this rotten crap, knowing that control of power is a zero-sum game and that if they can get people blaming Obama then they win.
No disrespect intended to GSR, but they count on the existence and persuasiveness of posts like this. If people just said “yeah, we don’t like that Obama’s going to sign it, but we’re going to focus on pounding the Republicans into jelly so that he won’t get this sort of thing on his desk,” then maybe they would stop. It’s basic operant reinforcement: they keep on doing what seems to work.
Republicans are responsible for the fact that many Democrats (and, often, President Obama) don’t have the courage of their convictions?
That, and Democrats who complain?
Pardon me while I puke.
And if any person doesn’t find the difference between Senator/campaigner Obama and President Obama, PARTICULARLY on national security issues, troubling and worthy of highlighting, well then you never had the right to criticize President Bush on those issues.
I do see a difference between what Obama promised on national security and what he delivered. But this isn’t apparently his initiative — and it’s not really that new. Greenwald isn’t wrong often, but he’s wrong about this. Read this: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/20/1047407/-Greenwalds-3-NDAA-myths-is-moony-and-wrong.
Give me a break. Ms. Doane acts like this President would be constrained by the due process clause, when in fact this President ignored due process when he had an American citizen murdered…that would be Mr. Al Awlaki…rather than having charges filed, having Mr. Al Awlaki apprehended, and then brought to trial for the crimes he was accused of.
This is where you’re supposed to explain to me that despite any appearances, Awlaki was not actually fomenting, promoting, and helping to direct war against the U.S.
This government — like most governments — has citizens murdered all the time. Kelly Thomas was a citizen. I think that most Americans can stay far enough away from the lines that Awlaki crossed not to have to fear the consequences of such a policy. And if he’d made himself available to be arrested, I’d have been happier to see him tried.
Greg, Kelly Thomas was not slated for assassination by the government. What the hell are you talking about? As for Mr. Awlaki, he was ALLEGED to have been conspiring against the United States. Alleged! We don’t kill American citizens because we ACCUSE them of crimes.
Well, at least we didn’t.
Greg –
Your arguments are getting much less convincing as the conversation goes forth. For Awlaki, the predator drone was judge, jury and executioner in your estimation. Now, for consistency in terms of dual application, in theory, you would be fine with Cuba or Venezuela sending a drone or target assassination squad for Luis Posada Carriles here in the United States, right? (If they were indeed trying to do that, instead of demanding an extradition)
Oh, and bringing Kelly Thomas into mention? Doesn’t make sense at all.
I believe I will become a Republican just so I can vote for Ron Paul in the primary. And tell all the Dems I know to do the same. If ONE party begins to stand for civil liberties, maybe it’ll drag the other party in that direction. Maybe?
Aside from that, let’s deluge the White House with calls, letters and e-mails. He hasn’t signed it yet, and there IS a lot of outrage out here.
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments
Vern, we now have a open primary so you can voter for anyone without regard to party.
Only central committee members are by party now.
“Indefinite Detention” – I thought that this post was going to be about my alma mater high school; at which I hold the school record for time served in a single sentence of indefinite detention. No surprise there – huh Vern?
The surprise is that they let you out!
I was on indefinite for nearly my entire junior year – I was surprised as hell that I was not still on it when I returned as a senior. The school was shocked that I returned at all. I guess that I have a high threshold for pain – that is going to come in handy for me if BHO is re-elected.
I had plenty of detentions too. You were about 10 years before me I think; I wonder if we were stuck in the same room.
As often as not I’d get detention for arguing strenuously with my English teacher about some grammatical question – which particular part of speech a certain word was in the context of the sentence and so on. The dean, who was a retired English teacher himself, would always say, “Vern, you’re right. But don’t fight with your teachers, they just hate to look stupid.”
PS. Aren’t you worried that you’re giving your enemies too many clues to your identity?
“You’re right. But don’t fight with your teachers, they just hate to look stupid.”
Substitute any other power-wielding noun in the animal kingdom for “teachers” and you have a universally applicable lesson there. Of course it’s one that some of us never learn, and never want to learn.
Speaking of evil:
If Satan punishes the evildoers, doesn’t that technically make him one of the good guys?
Read “Paradise Lost.”
Hey vern, Im not voting for this ass clown again either. this open priomary Im not familiar with it. can I vote for Ron Paul without changing party? If I can do that without changing it will be convenient. But if I have to switch I will. Obama has become an embarrassment and disapointment to me.
I’m still gonna vote for him in the general, just because four years under Romney or Gingrich would be even worse. But I’ll be holding my nose.
He’d better do some stellar stuff the next ten months.
BY THE WAY EVERYBODY I DID make the phone call and e-mail above, and I’m going to keep making phone calls. I HOPE YOU ALL ARE! The lines are very busy, and I bet it’s mostly because of this, and all asking him to veto, but DO YOUR PART!!!!!!!
I’m not sure whether Top Two applies to President. I should know, but I don’t. I kind of doubt it.
Top Two is for non-Presidential elections.
Wait time for the White House comments is only about 5 minutes.
I’m glad it’s only 5 minutes last you tried. I waited over 10 earlier, and two of my friends couldn’t get thru at all. Keep it up guys
*New rules…….for the New One World Order……what do you guys expect, free speech, Occupy Wall Street and an America that only taxes those that can afford it?
Probably not!
*Remembe McCain – Palin? Scary thought isn’t it?
This has been touted as a smart and non-hyperbolic analysis of the NDAA. I’ve only skimmed it, but it looks very good to me.
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/
In CA, the Presidential primary is still a closed primary. You have to change to Republican to vote for a Republican candidate. Might I suggest a vote for Ron Paul 🙂
Vern said: “I miss Russ Feingold…”
Ha – ha ha ! The people of Wisconsin didn’t care that they would miss him.
Well, they’ve changed their minds – if he ran for Governor he would beat Scott Walker EASY, easier than anyone else according to several polls. I wish he would.
Hey, Obama really does read the Orange Juice Blog, as well as the comments editor Vern sends him:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/holder_obama_will_issue_signing_statement_with_ndaa.php?ref=fpb
Obama will issue a signing statement. (Of course we still don’t know what the signing statement will say exactly, but it’s got to be partly because of all the public outrage. And if he didn’t sign the bill at all, soldiers’ paychecks would have stopped.)
*Alan……a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Ben Franklin and John Paul Jones……we
may have to consider that.
Will Congress Expand The Defense Authorization Act To Include YOU as a “Covered Person?”
It is problematic U.S. Government in the future will want to expand the scoop of Section 1021 in the passed Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (to include as “covered persons” for Indefinite Detention, not only persons “suspected of substantially supporting al-Qaeda or the Taliban; or their associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners” (but add to the list of “covered persons” (other) alleged terrorists and organizations foreign or domestic. Currently what constitutes (1) a terrorist act, (2) supporting terrorists or (3) being a “Belligerent” is broadly vague and not clearly defined? For example, Americans attending a protest demonstration against a U.S. Policy or U.S. Military Action could be charged with all (three) under the Patriot Act and The Defense Authorization Act of 2012.
Provisions in The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 govern the “Authority of the President and Armed Forces to Detain (Covered Persons) without trial pursuant to the (AUMF) Authorization for Use of Military Force.
FYI: Glenn Greenwald recently wrote an article titled “Three myths about the detention bill” that deeply examine provisions of The Defense Authorization Act including wording that is broadly vague, that potentially could cause the indefinite incarceration of Americans without trial; and conflicting definitions of “Covered Persons” in provisions (A) & (B) of section 1021. You may read Glen Greenwald’s article at: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/
Is The Passed Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (retroactive) To Detain Americans?
The Defense Authorization Act of 2012) appears more threatening to Americans than Hitler’s (1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS. Hitler’s laws set time limits that Germans could be incarcerated for e.g., Serious Disturbance of the Peace and Rioting. But Senators Carl Levin and John McCain’s bill broadly mandates holding Americans indefinitely in Military Custody for being a “Belligerent.”
Why should anyone be surprised President Obama insisted on indefinite detentions of U.S. Citizens in The Defense Authorization Act? It was widely known that Obama gave a speech in May 2010 at a Security Conference that proposed, incarcerating anyone in indefinite detention without evidence of wrongdoing that government deemed a “combatant” or likely to engage or support a violent act in the future; including U.S. Citizens.
Now that Obama has signed The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Obama like Hitler, will have the power to arrest members of Congress, drag U.S. Citizens off the street and from their homes to be imprisoned indefinitely based only on Government’s premise someone is a “Combatant” or Belligerent” having or likely to engage in or support a violent act in the future or do something that (might) threaten National Security.
Now that Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, could millions of lawful U.S. activists be subject to indefinite military detention. When you examine Obama’s May 2010 speech, it appears Obama wanted (retroactive power) to incarcerate anyone that government alleged had (prior) committed or supported violent acts on the premise he or she is likely to engage in or support violent acts in the future: some U.S. activists may be vulnerable because no activist knows what other activists or groups they associated or networked did in the past or might do illegally in the future domestically or overseas. U.S. Government need (only allege) a person; group, organization current or former inmate—has committed or might commit a violent act or threaten U.S. National Security to order Indefinite Detention of Americans in military custody with no evidence whatsoever.
Historically when countries have passed police state laws like S.1867, many Citizens abstain from politically speaking out; visiting activists websites or writing comments that might be deemed inappropriate by the Government, i.e. cause someone to be investigated or detained in Military Custody. Are some writers dead-meat with Obama’s signing of S. 1867? It is foreseeable any “American” who writes on the Internet or verbally express an opinion against any entity of U.S. Government or its coalition partners may under the Patriot Act and The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 be deemed by U.S. authorities a “Combatant or Belligerent” or someone likely to engage in, support or provoke violent acts or threaten National Security. U.S. Government can too easily allege an author’s writings inspired Combatant(s) or Belligerent(s) in the past; could in the future or currently, to order an author’s indefinite military detention.
It is problematic that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings or allowed legal counsel that are interrogated, will be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite Military Detention. Obama will have the power to override the U.S. Constitution. Obama will have the power to detain indefinitely any American without probable cause or evidence. What American will dare speak out against the U.S. government now that Obama has signed The Defense Authorization Act of 2012.
Obama appears to be centralizing the power of federal Government, by getting legislation passed that U.S. government can potentially use to intimidate and threaten any individual or corporation. Hitler got passed similar laws shortly before the burning of the German Parliament building blamed on the communists: immediately after the fire, Hitler used his prior passed police-state laws to coerce corporations and influential Citizens to support passage of fascist legislation e.g., the (1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS / DECREE OF THE REICH PRESIDENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE AND STATE that suspended provisions of the German Constitution that protected Citizens’ freedoms and civil liberties. Senators Carl Levin and John McCain’s (Defense Authorization Act of 2012) appears more threatening to Americans than Hitler’ (1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS. Hitler’s laws set time limits that Germans could be incarcerated for e.g., Serious Disturbance of the Peace and Rioting. But Senators Carl Levin (D) and John McCain’s ® bill broadly mandates holding Americans indefinitely in Military Custody for being a Combatant or Belligerent. A U.S. Police State Government can use The Defense Authorization Act; and Patriot Act that includes more than 350 civil asset forfeiture laws to threaten or seize the assets of any corporation or individual; to strong-arm U.S. corporations, institutions and others to support government actions including passage of more Police State (Fascist) legislation that will intimidate, threaten and curtail the civil liberties of Americans.
Immediately Below: compare The 1933 Nazi Decrees with Senators Carl Levin and John McCain’s National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.
1933. ROBL. I 83.
DECREE OF THE REICH PRESIDENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF
THE PEOPLE AND STATE
Note: Based on translations by State Department, National Socialism, 1942 PP. 215-17, and Pollak, J.K., and Heneman, H.J., The Hitler Decrees, (1934), pp. 10-11.7
In virtue of Section 48 (2) of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against Communist acts of Violence, endangering the state:
Section 1
Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.
Section 2
If in a state the measures necessary for the restoration of public security and order are not taken, the Reich Government may temporarily take over the powers of the highest state authority.
Section 4
Whoever provokes, or appeals for or incites to the disobedience of the orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities subject to then for the execution of this decree, or the orders given by the Reich Government according to Section 2, is punishable—insofar as the deed, is not covered by the decree with more severe punishment and with imprisonment of not less that one month, or with a fine from 150 up to 15,000 Reichsmarks.
Whoever endangers human life by violating Section 1, is to be punished by sentence to a penitentiary, under mitigating circumstances with imprisonment of not less than six months and, when violation causes the death of a person, with death, under mitigating circumstances with a penitentiary sentence of not less that two years. In addition the sentence my include confiscation of property.
Whoever provokes an inciter to or act contrary to public welfare is to be punished with a penitentiary sentence, under mitigating circumstances, with imprisonment of not less than three months.
Section 5
The crimes which under the Criminal Code are punishable with penitentiary for life are to be punished with death: i.e., in Sections 81 (high treason), 229 (poisoning), 306 (arson), 311 (explosion), 312 (floods), 315, paragraph 2 (damage to railroad properties, 324 (general poisoning).
Insofar as a more severe punishment has not been previously provided for, the following are punishable with death or with life imprisonment or with imprisonment not to exceed 15 years:
1. Anyone who undertakes to kill the Reich President or a member or a commissioner of the Reich Government or of a state government, or provokes to such a killing, or agrees to commit it, or accepts such an offer, or conspires with another for such a murder;
2. Anyone who under Section 115 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious rioting) or of Section 125 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious disturbance of the peace) commits the act with arms or cooperates consciously and intentionally with an armed person;
3. Anyone who commits a kidnapping under Section 239 of the Criminal with the intention of making use of the kidnapped person as a hostage in the political struggle.
Section 6
This decree enters in force on the day of its promulgation.
Reich President Reich Chancellor Reich Minister of the Interior
Reich Minister of Justice
*Does Robspierre get to sign the release papers?