Naomi Wolf: "U.S. is sleepwalking into becoming a police state ... the president can lock up anyone"

[Better Believe It]

The NDAA: a clear and present danger to American liberty
The US is sleepwalking into becoming a police state, where, like a pre-Magna Carta monarch, the president can lock up anyone
February 29, 2012

Yes, the worst things you may have heard about the National Defense Authorization Act, which has formally ended 254 years of democracy in the United States of America, and driven a stake through the heart of the bill of rights, are all really true. The act passed with large margins in both the House and the Senate on the last day of last year – even as tens of thousands of Americans were frantically begging their representatives to secure Americans' habeas corpus rights in the final version.NDAA critics say that it enables ordinary US citizens to be treated like 'enemy combatants' in Guantánamo.

It does indeed – contrary to the many flatout-false form letters I have seen that both senators and representatives sent to their constituents, misleading them about the fact that the NDAA destroys their due process rights. Under the act, anyone can be described as a 'belligerent".

And with a new bill now being introduced to make it a crime to protest in a way that disrupts any government process – or to get close to anyone with secret service protection – the push to legally lock down the United Police States is in full force.

Overstated? Let's be clear: the NDAA grants the president the power to kidnap any American anywhere in the United States and hold him or her in prison forever without trial. The president's own signing statement, incredibly, confirmed that he had that power. As I have been warning since 2006: there is not a country on the planet that you can name that has ever set in place a system of torture, and of detention without trial, for an "other", supposedly external threat that did not end up using it pretty quickly on its own citizens.

Read the full article at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/29/ndaa-danger-american-liberty


-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Leaders From Across Political Spectrum Unite to Oppose NDAA
Written by Joe Wolverton, II
February 24, 2012

This liberty-extinguishing legislation converts America into a war zone and turns Americans into potential suspected terrorists, complete with the full roster of rights typically afforded to terrorists — none.

A key component of this reconciled bill mandates a frightening grant of immense and unconstitutional power to the executive branch. Under the provisions of Section 1021, the President is afforded the absolute power to arrest and detain citizens of the United States without their being informed of any criminal charges, without a trial on the merits of those charges, and without a scintilla of the due process safeguards protected by the Constitution of the United States.

Further, in order to execute the provisions of Section 1021 described in the previous paragraph, subsequent clauses (Section 1022, for example) unlawfully give the President the absolute and unquestionable authority to deploy the armed forces of the United States to apprehend and to indefinitely detain those suspected of threatening the security of the “homeland.” In the language of this legislation, these people are called “covered persons.”

The universe of potential “covered persons” includes every citizen of the United States of America. Any American could one day find himself or herself branded a “belligerent” and thus subject to the complete confiscation of his or her constitutional civil liberties and nearly never-ending incarceration in a military prison.

Read the full article at:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/10982-leaders-from-across-political-spectrum-unite-to-oppose-ndaa


-----------------------------------------------------------------------



An execrable ancestor
By Bruce Fein
Bruce Fein is a constitutional lawyer who served as an associate deputy attorney to President Ronald Reagan and is a senior adviser to the Ron Paul 2012 campaign.
February 28, 2012

The execrable ancestor of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA) is the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Frederick Douglass protested, “Under this [Fugitive Slave] law the oaths of any two villains (the capturer and the claimant) are sufficient to confine a free man to slavery for life.” Under the NDAA, the suspicion of the president is sufficient to confine an American citizen to military detention for life without accusation or trial. The twin laws make for an alarming tale.

The NDAA defiles due process more egregiously than did the Fugitive Slave Act.Section 1021 empowers the military to detain for life without trial any American citizen captured in the United States whom the president maintains is “substantially support[ing] … al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces” engaged in hostilities against “coalition partners” of the United States. None of the key terms in section 1021 are defined to constrain the president’s power to disappear Americans into dungeons at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere. “Al Qaeda” is undefined. “The Taliban” is undefined. “Associated forces” is undefined. “Coalition partners” is undefined. “Substantially supporting” is undefined. The words can mean whatever the president, like Humpty Dumpty, wants them to mean. “Substantial support” might be said to include any criticism of the United States government for flouting the Constitution in combatting international terrorism.

The president is crowned by the NDAA with untrammeled authority to decide the proof and method for the executive branch to determine whether an American is substantially aiding al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces against a coalition partner. There is no judicial involvement. In sum, under the NDAA the president may imprison for life any American citizen for an alleged linkage to international terrorism against coalition partners of the United States on his say-so alone — the very definition of tyranny articulated by James Madison, father of the Constitution, in Federalist No. 47.

The NDAA emerged from the Senate and House Armed Services Committees without a single hearing. The Judiciary Committees waived jurisdiction. Only 13 senators voted against the sacrilege to due process. The statute is naked of findings that the awesome power lodged in the president was necessary to cure a deficiency in existing laws. It was enacted more than a decade after the 9/11 abominations, when it was known that no American citizen on American soil who substantially supported al Qaeda had ever eluded prosecution and punishment in the criminal justice system before any American in America had been harmed.

Read the full article at:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/28/an-execrable-ancestor/

[Comrade Grumpy]

1. If the response to this thread is any indication, I see what she means.

Maybe if we somehow linked it to Andrew Breitbart...

[Vincardog]

2. Naomi Wolf NAILED IT. WE have to STOP this NOW

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. Holy crap! What do we do??

[JNathanK]

23. Watch reality tv and go shopping! nt

[ProSense]

4. Wait

Bruce Fein is a constitutional lawyer who served as an associate deputy attorney to President Ronald Reagan and is a senior adviser to the Ron Paul 2012 campaign.

...how anti-establishment (and from Tucker Carlson's RW rag at that)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002367459

Good reads:

Obama Admin Kicks "Indefinite Military Detention" to the Curb
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/29/1069565/-Obama-DOJ-Kicks-Indefinite-Detention-to-the-Curb

Obama Issues Waivers on Military Custody for Terror Suspects
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002364540

[leveymg]

65. The statute is what it says. If Obama didn't believe he'd use the power, he wouldn't sign it.

His signing statement means nothing, as it isn't even binding on the President going forward. It's just an interpretation of the law at that moment.

This was a major, historic violation of the Constitution, and the President and every Congresscritter who voted for the Bill should be subjected to the law's powers. Maybe, after a long stretch of isolation and torture at Gitmo or some CIA dark prison without access to habeas corpus, they might reconsider the wisdom of this measure.

[The Doctor.]

72. You'd be right,

if the bill did not contain many other provisions that were otherwise necessary.

[leveymg]

73. If he was unwilling to sign the Bill, it would be returned to Committee to strip out those sections

and come back to the President's desk within 48 hrs. That's a lame excuse for something Obama wants.

[The Doctor.]

74. And they'd send it back with even worse shit in it.

Or not send it back at all.

You have a very 'simplistic' view of how the process works.

[leveymg]

75. No, Democratic Senate majority. Have you ever actually worked on Capitol Hill?

I've been in Washington for close to three decades now. Don't try that sort of condescending BS.

[The Doctor.]

79. So you're saying that what you described is *exactly* what would happen?

To me that seems very naïve. No condescension here, just my opinion that such a view is rather simplistic. If what you were saying was true, then the President would never have to sign a bill that contained provisions he didn't want so long as he had a majority in the Senate.

What you're saying simply makes no logical sense.

Tell me, straight out, that the President can send a bill back to the Senate, and there is nothing the Republicans can do to stop provisions from being stripped out.

[Justice wanted]

5. What certain people believe and shouted since this came up.

[Puzzledtraveller]

6. It's only a big deal if there is a (R) behind the presidents name. eom

[MineralMan]

7. Uh, one of the copy and pastes is from

Bruce Fein, a Reagan and now Ron Paul adviser. Where do you draw the line for the stuff you post here? Uff da!

Here's his brief bio from your very post:

Bruce Fein is a constitutional lawyer who served as an associate deputy attorney to President Ronald Reagan and is a senior adviser to the Ron Paul 2012 campaign.

Naomi Wolf is a Ron Paul Supporter, as well, and is yet another of your copy and paste favorites. Do you support Ron Paul, yourself?

Joe Wolverton, II, another of your copy and paste editorial writers is also a big Ron Paul fan. What's up with that.

Fuck Ron Paul and all of his sycophants! Please choose your sources more wisely.

[Dragonfli]

10. I have a broken watch that is correct at 12:18 every day! What do you make of the main article?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/29/ndaa-danger-american-liberty

Or are your fingers in your ears as you chant "lalallalalal I can't here you, I refuse to hear you" figuratively of course

You can do better than that can't you?
What are your thoughts on our ever increasing loss of liberty and justice? Any thoughts at all? Are you even conscious?

[MineralMan]

12. When I read editorial writing, I always look to see where the writer

is coming from. In this case, all three of these writers are Ron Paul supporters. They are not reporting news. These are editorials. The authors' points of view are valuable input in how to interpret their editorials.

Your final question is a direct attack on me. I don't recognize your screen name, so I'll just ignore it. Yes, I'm conscious. I'm aware. I do my research.

[bahrbearian]

39. What about writers that contribute to the FR, do you dismiss their input.

[MineralMan]

42. I haven't read FR for years.

I go there maybe once a month from a link here on DU to see what nonsense is being posted about that subject. FR is full of incredibly stupid morons. I certainly do dismiss their input. You may be referring to some time I spent posting on that site several years ago. About that, I offer this link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=journals&uid=231858

You'll find an explanation there. All questions about Free Republic and my time there, which ended in 2006, are answered in the top entry in my journal. Thanks for your interest. BTW, I feel much the same about what is posted on the Old Elm Tree forum and ConservativeCave. It's all moronic.

[bahrbearian]

45. All good questions

[sabrina 1]

32. And oddly enough Bruce Fein was a hero to the Left when he came against Bush's anti-Constitutional

policies.

Whether inadvertently or not, you just proved the point made in the OP.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2516241

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x318321#318333

And lots more all over the Left Blogosphere, on Keith Olbermann etc.

And the fact that he IS a Conservative was then used to boost his credibility, which it did. It was not just Liberals with a beef against the Republican WH.

And now, as the OP points out, the very issues that made him credible to the left, as seen in your post, are being used to try to discredit him.

The fact is he was right then and he's right now. But it is sad that for some in both parties, it is not about issues at all. And as a result, their Parties feel no obligation to uphold the principles they once claimed to uphold.

Fortunately there are enough people in the Dem Party at least, who do not practice situational ethics.

[MineralMan]

35. Here's the thing: I oppose parts of NDAA, too. I think it is a very

bad bill. I also understand why it was enacted, and why Obama signed it, with a signing statement. That bill did not only include the business about indefinite detention. In fact, that was a tiny part of the bill. the NDAA is what authorizes payment for all military operations. Since we have lots of those, with people in harm's way, some sort of NDAA is essential. It's essential every time it comes up.

This time, a nasty bit of business was included in the bill and, as usual, it all came to the President at almost the last minute. That's the strategy of the Republicans, who have a majority in the House and enough Senators to block the passage of anything they wish. We've watched them do that for three years.

So, the President gets this bill that funds the entire Defense Department and it has this nasty business in it. So he writes a signing statement saying that his administration will not use that bill to detain American Citizens. Yes, that doesn't apply to a future Republican Administration, but guess what? There will be other NDAAs passed before that happens. President Obama will get another full term in office and, if we're clever about it and stop condemning Obama for everything he cannot control, we might just be able to all work together to elect a Congress that will send the next NDAA to the President without that nasty business in it. In fact, it might include specific language against any such thing.

But, if we think only of the moment and the instant, we won't see that and we'll shout down the President and work against his reelection. Then, we can have that Republican administration real soon, while the terms of this NDAA are still in force. Wouldn't that be just peachy?

You think you know where I stand. You have no fucking idea where I stand. But, I think in longer terms than this week and this year. I deal with realities, rather than ideals that can't be accomplished. That's me. You may take some other path, and I don't really care. This is the path I take, and I will speak of it as I please.

[bahrbearian]

47. So a bad bill has a couple of parts that your Ok with, so lets pass it?

[MineralMan]

67. A couple of parts? Have you seen the bill?

It seems as though you haven't, really.

[sabrina 1]

58. That doesn't address the point of the OP. Not to mention the fact that you could say Bush

also had plenty of excuses and reasons for the destruction of our rights, some of them apparently compelling enough to fool an awful lot of people. But NOT Democrats. Not while I've been paying attention. But now? As the OP points out, there is an odd silence from some on the left when it comes to the very same issues that caused so much outrage during the Bush years.

This argument you present is old, maybe you are not aware that we have heard these excuses over and over again since at least 2006 and they still make no sense.

What they amount to is that the 'President has no power' or 'we are facing an election so you can't expect him to take a stand for our rights'. Year after year after year. Old, and getting older each time we hear them.

We are always having elections, as those of us who were actually on Democratic Blogs fighting against the Bush excuses know only too well. Bush's compelling, apparently, claim that HE was 'only trying to protect us'.

We haven't changed, but something has. The President is more popular than all the Republicans put together. All he had to do was to go to the people and explain what the Republicans were trying to do. He would have had the full support from all Democrats, from most Independents and from some intelligent Conservatives and Libertarians, once the people understood that the Republicans were willing to hold up funding for the military in order to destroy our rights. But there was no fight. There never is. The question is 'why'??

What happens to Democrats when they get to DC? Are they being threatened? Because the job of all elected officials first and foremost is to 'defend and protect the Constitution of the US'. And yet, all we hear, year after year, are excuses.

We tried your way, and it did not work. Each year there is more chipping away at our Constitutional rights with the same old, tired excuses.

That is why there is now a growing movement to take this country out of the hands of the Global Corps who buy our elected officials and return it to the people to whom it belongs.

This is not about one man or woman. This president will win the election. What will be the excuse next year when more rights are attacked? 'We can't fight for that now, there is an election coming up, we could lose the Senate, the House'??

The system is corrupted and that is what needs to be dealt with.

And no president can do what needs to be done when the people are all too willing to make excuses. As NY AG Schneiderman said recently 'getting elected is only the beginning but then it takes the support of the people to help get things done, they cannot walk away until the next election'. He was thanking Occupy Wall Street for letting it be known that the people were demanding accountability from Wall Street. Without their uncompromising demands he could not have done what he did, refuse to make a deal that would have let them off the hook.

So yes, you are free to keep following the same old path, but the world is changing as the people wake up and see a broken system that even with a good president, cannot work. If we want this President to do what is right, we have to help him do so.

If we do it your way, he has no leverage to tell those powers pressuring him to do things their way. As Schneirerman points out, he needs to be able to show that he cannot go against the will of the people.

We have been far too complacent and look what that got us.

[sabrina 1]

62. And none of that addresses the point of the OP.

It isn't about YOU or where you stand. It is about principles, it is about fighting for what is right the same way Democrats fought when Bush was implementing all these violations of our rights. And we won. If we refused to accept Bush's excuses many of which also sounded reasonable enough to an awful lot of Americans, why on earth would anyone be willing to accept excuses now?

Your post is filled with excuses. Excuses we hear each time a bad decision is made. Thankfully enough people are not willing to accept them, and the President listens when the people speak out, he has at least acknowledged it is a bad bill.

But that is not nearly enough, so we will keep on criticizing whether you like it or not. Because it is about this COUNTRY and because it is the job of every elected official first and foremost to 'defend and protect the Constitution of the US' and because they need to be constantly reminded of that. THAT is our job.

Do as you wish, but don't expect those arguments to have much resonance with any but a few Washington insiders, lobbyists and political operatives who in no way relate to the people or their needs which is why the people are now taking matters into their own hands. The people were derelict in their duties, and you are asking them to continue to not participate in their country's affairs. That is not going to happen until the damage that has been done is fixed, and it may take years.

[Kaleko]

84. Fantastic post. Yes! A passionate voice.

Absolutely right on, sista.

[leveymg]

66. You're attacking the messenger, not refuting the message. Logical error. Fail.

Yes, there are some on the Libertarian Right who agree with us that this law is unconstitutional. That doesn't prove anything other than those sections of the NDAA are broadly perceived to be offensive to the Bill of Rights.

As if Obama has never agreed with the GOP on anything.

[socialindependocrat]

8. We put away the repubs

Here it is in black and white -
make it a crime to protest in a way that disrupts any government process

All the Repubs who have stated on TV that their sole purpose is to make Barak Obama a one term president and to block everything he tries to do as protest....

- bye, bye baby!

Lock them up and throw away the key!

[nc_gadfly]

9. Can you imagine if all this was in place during Nixon?

*shudders*

[SidDithers]

11. Shouldn't it be a TOS violation to use a Reaganite Ron Paul advisor to attack Democrats?...nt

Sid

[MineralMan]

13. You'd think so, wouldn't you.

All three authors in the OP are Ron Paul supporters. Just search their names along with Ron Paul, and you'll see. All three are firm in their support for him.

I'm equally firm in my disgust with Ron Paul.

[JNathanK]

25. I don't hold it against them if they're Ron Paul suppoters.

Hardly anyone in either party, democrat or otherwise, is staunchly anti-war. Obama voted for Patriot Act reauthorization as a senator and signed the NDAA into law as president, which has made my respect for him plummet. The Democrats seem saner than the Republicans, but in the end, I don't think it will really matter which party get elected.

I disagree with Ron Paul on a lot, but being anti-war and protecting the erosion of the constitution are rare positions from any other candidates. Sure, a lot of them give lip service, but Paul was one of the few legislators that actually voted against the Iraq war, the NDAA bill, the Patriot Act 1 or 2, etc, that I can understand why people support him. I have a lot of formerly registered democrat friends that have registered republican recently just so they could vote Ron Paul in the primaries because of his consistent anti-war stance and the fact there's hardly any representation of these issues.

If more Democrats were like Dennis Kusinich and less like Obama or Clinton, I don't think the democratic party would have this problem of liberals ambivalently supporting someone who wants to bust up unions and privatize everything.

[ProSense]

26. What

I disagree with Ron Paul on a lot, but being anti-war and protecting the erosion of the constitution are rare positions from any other candidates. Sure, all the other candidates give lip service, but Paul was one of the few legislators that actually voted against the Iraq war, the NDAA bill, the Patriot Act 1 or 2, etc, that I can understand why people support him. I have a lot of formerly registered democrat friends that have registered republican recently just so they could vote Ron Paul in the primaries because of his consistent anti-war stance.

...a load of crap. Ron Paul votes against almost everything. His only purpose in Congress is to keep Republicans in control.

Ron Paul isn't anti-defense spending, he's anti-everything else
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002155700

Have I mentioned Ron Paul isn't anti-war?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100210182

Ron Paul is a fucking hypocrite: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002161152

[bahrbearian]

48. Obama is a Hypocrite by your definition,

[bahrbearian]

49. Exactly

[Bonobo]

31. Absolutely telling (and pathetic) that attacking the messenger is what you do

when confronted with an absolutely damning reality that you cannot deal with.

[ProSense]

36. For

"Absolutely telling (and pathetic) that attacking the messenger is what you do"

...your enjoyment: Fuck Bruce Fein, Ron Paul and the Daily Caller.

I'm "pathetic" in my dislike for Republican tools. I can live with that.

[sabrina 1]

80. Did you call Bruce Fein a tool when he went after Bush? Airc, Fein was a big hero

on the left, because he had the guts to stand up against his own party. So when did he become a 'tool' and of whom? Who was he a tool for when he said exactly the same things about Bush? Why did no one tell us he was a tool back then?

[woo me with science]

41. Indeed.

The faux freakout over Ron Paul
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002154246

[sabrina 1]

57. You want to censor someone who was a hero on DU for standing up against his own party

during the Bush administration?

And with that, you confirm the OP's point.

[leveymg]

68. So Alert on it, Sid, and see if you get a majority of a DU jury to agree with you.

I don't think so, Sid. And, by the way, this little subthread belongs in Meta. But, I won't bother others about that.

[L0oniX]

83. +1

[Bobbie Jo]

78. Should be.

Yet the campaign marches on without consequence.

[L0oniX]

82. Still stalking Better Believe It I see. Did you alert on it yet? My bet is that it will stand.

[davidthegnome]

14. I'm no Paul supporter

and I don't know much about Naomi Wolf, beyond that she's a semi-popular media figure. I think the fact that the Patriot Act is still in place though, demonstrates that we are indeed becoming a police state. Has everyone been paying attention? Watch OWS, see the reactions to it, the attempted infiltrations, the spying. Consider how many were imprisoned during the Bush years (and even now, I have heard) without being charged of a crime, without due process, simply "a possible terrorist connection". Possible, not that it need be plausible.

We could also talk about the DEA, how many homes, how much money and land has been seized due simply to "evidence" (not proof) of gain through the sale of illegal drugs. There are so many issues, so many abuses, that we certainly don't need Naomi to point them out for us.

As long as we stay quiet, don't make waves... we should be reasonably safe. If we, however, struggle against the status quo and the powers that be in any meaningful or successful manner, the response will be strong, immediate and overwhelming. We are an oligarchy in truth, the financial powers of the time are far more powerful than any Senator or President.

I think Paul is batshit crazy, but I think Miss Wolf is right about a number of things. I don't blame Obama, I blame the money bags.

[Quantess]

15. Naomi Wolf NOT Naomi Klein

Just a reminder, since people confuse them every single time. Naomi Klein wrote Shock Doctrine, Naomi Wolf wrote The Beauty Myth, or something.

Not that I disagree with Naomi Wolf in this instance. I agree this new law sets a dangerous precendent.

[bvar22]

16. Too bad these are just voices in the wilderness.

The MSM and the leadership of BOTH dominant Political Parties
are A-OK with this astonishing Extra-Constitutional Power grab by the Unitary Executive.
At least when Bush-the-Lesser started this Unitary Executive bullshit,
there WAS some organized opposition.
Today....NOTHING beyond a few Voices in the Wilderness.
I will add MY voice to Naomi Wolf's and those other few.


Helllloooooooo!
Is ANYBODY out there?
Have you read The Constitution lately?
Do you care?



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[JNathanK]

24. I don't care if she is a Ron Paul supporter. I am too, only to the extent he doesn't want war...

...or to dismantle the constitution. I disagree with a lot of his other views though, but there's hardly anyone else campaigning on the very important anti-war platform. This is why I don't hold it against anyone to be a Ron Paul supporter. Me and my friends protested the NDAA though.

[bahrbearian]

51. +1

[woo me with science]

61. The Ron Paul freakout is a symptom of malignancy in the party.

How sick is our party, when Ron Paul, an extreme libertarian, is considered this much of a threat even though he will never have a chance in hell of winning the nomination or getting anywhere *near* the White House. He is considered a threat only because our party is desperately sick. He is considered a threat because he actually speaks out about a few core issues of civil rights and corporate warmongering on which the corporate Democratic candidate has been a complete and utter sell-out.

It is a pathetic, unconscionable shame that the only candidate for President who is raising these issues happens also to be an extreme libertarian who would slash safety nets and abolish critical government functions up to and including the Department of Education. Good fucking god.

But SOMEONE needs to raise these issues, because the two bought-and-paid-for major parties seem hell-bent on sweeping them under the rug and enabling the march toward corporate fascism that we are now living.

The hypocrisy around here positively reeks. Those continually making excuses for this President would be screaming bloody murder at the same policies coming out of a Republican administration. But now they defend these abominations and try to smear those who express alarm as supporters of libertarianism. What utter horseshit.

When your candidate has sold out and betrayed the voters on so many critical issues, time after time after time, it appears the only strategy left is to try to trash everyone who points out this embarrassing fact. This year, that adds up to almost constant attempts at trashing...not only candidates of other parties, but also longstanding principled Democrats who have the conviction to speak out about what has happened to our party and our government.

What a mess this party is in. What a mess our country is in, a deadly serious, malignant mess of corporate greed and corruption, barreling toward corporate fascism. We are losing our country, our civil rights, and our futures, and that is not an exaggeration. We NEED to occupy now. We need to get the damned money out of the electoral system, so we can have a candidate who represents US again, rather than the corporate profiteers and the warmongers.



The faux freakout over Ron Paul
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002154246

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Oh, that's OK. Obama will certainly veto any bill that includes indefinite detention.

And, the ACLU just loves it:

http://www.aclu.org/indefinite-detention-endless-worldwide-war-and-2012-national-defense-authorization-act

On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), codifying indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history. The NDAA’s dangerous detention provisions would authorize the president — and all future presidents — to order the military to pick up and indefinitely imprison people captured anywhere in the world, far from any battlefield.


The breadth of the NDAA’s worldwide detention authority violates the Constitution and international law because it is not limited to people captured in an actual armed conflict, as required by the laws of war. Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way. The ACLU does not believe that the NDAA authorizes military detention of American citizens or anyone else in the United States. Any president’s claim of domestic military detention authority under the NDAA would be unconstitutional and illegal. Nevertheless, there is substantial public debate around whether the NDAA could be read even to repeal the Posse Comitatus Act and authorize indefinite military detention without charge or trial within the United States.

Although President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the NDAA’s detention provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use them, and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations. The provisions – which were negotiated by a small group of members of Congress, in secret, and without proper congressional review – are inconsistent with fundamental American values.

Both Congress and the president need to clean up the mess they have created. No one should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAA’s detention authority. The NDAA’s detention provisions must be repealed

[Better Believe It]

18. But the ACLU is always complaining about violations of the Constitution and stuff.

They never seem satisfied.

Don't they know we have to defend ourselves from terriorists and radicalists?

And who made them an authority on the Bill of Rights?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. I know. They're just professional leftist troublemakers who don't toe the party line.

[frylock]

28. don't they realize this is an election year!!1

[Dragonfli]

64. I heard the ACLU was comprised of nothing but rabid Ron Paul supporters!!!

They need to be silenced, maybe they can all be detained indefinitely so we can protect our rights.

[JNathanK]

55. The language is just too murky and even downright missleading.

Section 1021, when explaining covered persons that can be detained , says that current laws concerning American citizens won't be affected. It almost makes it sound like American citizens are protected, but its really just a neutral statement devoid of any meaning. Its just like the part that says that the section is not intended to limit or expand the power of the presidency. Its somewhat comforting until you get to 1022, and it says that the president, can by a waver, issue the military to detain covered persons.

Really, the bill doesn't even make any sense if it only applies to detaining "covered persons" (those deemed as terrorists and those belligerent to the United states) overseas, because who else would detain perceived enemies outside of the United States but military personnel?

Putting into context the the drone killing in Yemen of Anwar Al Alwalki, a US born citizen, who was put to death by a super-judicial NSA request that superseded habeas corpus, the implication could be interpreted that the current laws concerning Americans could allow a US citizen to fall under the category of "covered person", as explained in section 1021.

Its so convoluted, though, that a casual reader may interpret the bill to only apply to foreigners. Personally, I think foreigners should be subject to constitutional protection too, being that all human beings, despite what borders they reside in, deserve certain inalienable rights. Anyone who says otherwise is just being jingoistic. An accused terrorist should have rights to a trial by jury, not to protect terrorists, but to protect those falsely accused of being criminals or terrorists.

Of course, Mccain, a co-author of the indefinite detention provision, seems to miss this nuance.

I don't trust Obama's word either that he'll interpret the bill that protects American rights, anymore than I should have trusted him to keep his campaign promise that he'd close down Guantanamo bay or end the Iraq war within several months of taking office. I shouldn't trust that anyone will, being allowed to have an exorbitant concentration of power over others, use that power in a beneficent way. You're at their mercy under this constitutional onslaught, just as an absolute monarch's subjects are solely at his mercy.

[woo me with science]

20. K&R

[Moondog]

21. This will not end well. n/t

[MineralMan]

27. What begins poorly often ends poorly.

Bringing Ron Paul supporters to this issue will not produce good results on DU.

President Obama's signing statement makes it clear that this will not apply to American citizens.

[frylock]

29. and president obama's signing statement won't mean jack shit to the next republican admin

[MineralMan]

30. Yes, that's true, but we have almost 5 years before that happens.

In the meantime, we should be able to seat substantial majorities in both houses of Congress. Much will change if we do that, you see. Of course, that happening will depend on solid support from everyone to make it happen. Obama's a shoe-in, but Congress...not so much. We all have to work our butts off over the next few months, I think.

Are you in?

[frylock]

46. i think you're being delusional if you believe the republicans will never inhabit the white house..

whether it's 9 years down the line or longer.

[Bonobo]

33. Is Obama's signing statement proof against further Presidents as well? nt

[MineralMan]

38. Of course not. But, the NDAA, which authorizes defense spending

comes up every year. Are you expecting a different President before it comes up again? I'm not. In fact, what I'm doing it trying my damndest to give President Obama a Congress that will send the next one to him that includes a repeal of the small part that contains this indefinite confinement section. The thing is that I know what the NDAA is and how it works and what it does. It doesn't just do the thing we're talking about. It pays for everything. It must be passed each year and signed by the President.

How about you? What are you working toward that can be achieved? That's the real question.

[Bonobo]

40. Really? The REAL question is what am I doing, Mineral Man?

As you like to say in defense of your 4 year + stint at Free Republic, "I am not THAT important".

What is MUCH more important is that the US has been creeping invariably to the right for 30+ years and what is being done to counter THAT?

As to your weak point about the NDAA, let me get this straight....

Pres. Obama signs the NDAA that gives indefinite detention powers to the President and he willingly signs it and now your one hope (and ultra-weak defense) is hoping that he will also sign a bill that removes it? Oh my god. Incredible.

You are pinning your hopes on him signing a bill that will fix the bill he already signed. So funny. What does it take to learn ya?

[MineralMan]

43. See the link below:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=journals&uid=231858

I'm not at Free Republic. I was banned there in 2006. It's 2012 now. If you want information about what I was doing there, see the link above. If you want to see what I'm doing now, click the links in my signature line or read my posts on DU, where I've been since 2008. Many people post on other forums sometimes or have in the past. I'm betting you post on other forums, too, or have in the past. That doesn't seem that interesting, somehow. It's what you post here that matters.

[Bonobo]

44. Nope, not interested.

I'm glad to see you retract your statement above though that what REALLY MATTERS is what I am doing --that was pretty damned foolish when we are having a conversation about extra-legal and unconstitutional actions being signed by OUR President and candidate.

[bahrbearian]

50. Not many here have over 26,000 posts over there and call themselfs liberal

[TheKentuckian]

34. Signing statements aren't binding not even on the signer

and Constitution ALWAYS applies to the Federal Government. No one can be held without trial.

[MineralMan]

37. Nobody SHOULD be held without trial.

The fact is that people ARE held without trial. Facts generally trump ideals. Right now, we're holding a bunch of people in Guantanamo without trial. My understanding of the Constitution is that such is unconstitutional. However, the fact remains, and the courts have said OK.

Signing statements are statements of intent. They're public. Recognizing the nature of the entire NDAA, rather than just the part that's being discussed here, I understand the the military must be funded, and that funding must be initiated by the House of Representatives. Who is in control of that House? President Obama has to pay the military, but has no funds to pay them with. The House will give him the funds, but he has to accept this ugly business in the bill or risk not having those funds.

So, he says that under his administration, certain elements of that NDAA will not be done. He can do that. So, that's what he does, and the funding, which is the reason for the bill in the first place, goes through.

Reality sucks. Reality comes with compromises. Reality means eating hamburger instead of steak or eating Ramen noodles instead of a healthful meal. Reality sucks. It sucks for you and I, and it sucks for the President of The United States, whose powers are limited by the Constitution.

And there it is.

[bahrbearian]

52. It sucks for the the POTUS Really?

[bahrbearian]

53. Killing People used to be limited by the Constitution, until when?

[woo me with science]

22. Kick

[wildbilln864]

54. k & friggin r!

[MadHound]

56. I clicked on this thread, hoping against hope,

Hoping that Wolf wasn't going to get thrown under the bus. You see, I remember a time when Wolfe was, justifiably, celebrated and respected around here. But, as we can see, she is now busily being trashed by a certain group of people who think that any criticism of the president is verbotten.

Sad that a woman who has not changed her principles, who has always fought for what was best in this country, who so eloquently educated all of us on the perils of unchecked crony capitalism is now being derided because she hasn't changed, just the letter behind the name of the current president.

Funny, go back in the archives of DU and you will find that some of her most vociferous critics in this thread were raining down praise upon her head back in the Bush years. But then again, that's when those same critics were damning Bush for his extreme invasion of our privacy.

[SidDithers]

59. Naomi Wolf "eloquently educated all of us on the perils of unchecked crony capitalism"?...

Where did she do that?

Sid

[ProSense]

70. Yeah,

Naomi Wolf "eloquently educated all of us on the perils of unchecked crony capitalism"?

...there are no credible authors in the OP. Bruce Fein is a tool. It's clear some people are confusing Naomi Wolf with Naomi Klein.

Naomi Wolf's fact free blog post.
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2385188

What will they do when Obama doesn't impose (primarily because he's opposed) the imminent police state they're hyping?

This is nothing but spin by Ron Paul supporters. I mean, at the height of the NDAA debate, almost everyone acknowledged that it's not about what Obama would do, but future Presidents.

[sabrina 1]

60. Naomi Wolf, Naomi Klein, Matt Taibbi, Jeremy Scahill, Michael Moore the list is long

and growing. But if you wait long enough, the next time there is a Republican in the WH, all of these people will be heroes again.

However, I think it is just a small minority who do not represent Democrats as a whole. They are frightened of any kind of criticism when their party is in power. For some reason they don't have confidence in their Party being strong enough to be able to handle and benefit from constructive criticism.

But most Progressive Democrats do not share that fear, we know that a Party is strongest when it is constantly improving and the only way that can happen, is when its members are fully engaged and unwilling to compromise on the core principles that separate THIS party from the other one.

[riderinthestorm]

63. +100000. nt

[woo me with science]

69. Kick

[The Doctor.]

71. Over the top, sensationalistic, typical.

There is a perfectly good case to be made against the provision in the NDAA without the need to engage in eschatological hysteria.

I agree that the blocks are being put into place for the foundations of a fascist state. I'll happily give Obama another four years to put the brakes on rather than have some corporate douche speed us down that slope.

They're letting Obama win so that there will be another economic bubble to cash in on before tanking the nation. Then they run a convincing candidate (probably an intelligent Republican woman... if they can find one), the Dems will have virtually nothing, they'll take the White House and then after the 'tragic events' of early 2018 (take your pick, we'll have famine, economic collapse and "Terrorists" galore), they'll engage in a true Cross-and-Flag fascist takeover. Then they'll get to hunt liberals in the streets because they need scapegoats.

[SomethingFishy]

76. I disagree.. I don't think people are "sleepwalking"

I think they are running for it head on and happily. At least that's the take I get from the responses in this thread.

[dreamnightwind]

77. Bruce Fein is legit

on issues of constitutional rights, police state advances, etc. I've been watching this guy for years. And the attempts to paint him with the taint of Ron Paul are beyond pathetic. He was fighting for these issues long before becoming an advisor to Paul. He's no Paul sycophant, that's absurd.

I disagree with him on almost all of his political views, he's way on the right, but he genuinely and bravely defends against the fascists and their schemes, no matter who is in charge or who is in the White House. Too bad I can't say the same about some of the posters in this thread. Bruce Fein under the bus? Not on these kind of issues, no way.

And obviously this OP is right on target. Indefinite detention of U.S. citizens? Really? There's no defense for that. None.

[sabrina 1]

81. Yes, it says something, not about him, but about anyone who would now try to

discredit him when he has long been applauded on the Left for taking a courageous stand against his own Party on these very issues, when Bush was president.

Bruce Fein, as you say, on these issues is and always has been legitimate. It is beyond childish to try to distract from the issues by attacking someone who right here on DU was used under Bush, to show that it was not just Liberals who had these concerns, but even Conservatives like Fein.