Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

Better Believe It

(18,630 posts)
Mon Dec 26, 2011, 11:36 PM Dec 2011

Obama Breaks Promise To Veto Bill Allowing Indefinite Detention of Americans [View all]

Happy Birthday, Bill of Rights: Obama Breaks Promise To Veto Bill Allowing Indefinite Detention of Americans
By JONATHAN TURLEY
December 15, 2011


There was a brief moment when civil libertarians were stunned to see President Barack Obama actually take a stand in favor of civil liberties after years to rolling back on basic rights of citizens and moving beyond the Bush Administration in building up the security state. Obama said that he would veto the defense bill that contained a horrific provision for the indefinite detention of American citizens. While many predicted it, Obama has now again betrayed the civil liberties community and lifted the threat of the veto. Americans will now be subject to indefinite detention without trial in federal courts in a measure supported by both Democrats and Republicans. It is a curious way to celebrate the 220th anniversary of the Bill of Rights.

he White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is facially ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. 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 Administration and Democratic members are in full spin — using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.

At least Senator Lindsey Graham was honest when he said on the Senate floor that “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

Even more distressing is the statement from sponsor Senator Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee that “The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved … and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section.”

Read the full article at:

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/15/obama-breaks-promise-to-veto-bill-allowing-indefinite-detention-of-americans/


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


Loom of the Jackboot: Obama Gives Military Extreme Powers
by Alexander Cockburn
December 23, 2011


After months of declaring that he would veto such legislation, Obama has now crumbled and will soon sign a monstrosity called the Levin/McCain detention bill, named for its two senatorial sponsors, Carl Levin and John McCain. It's snuggled into the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act.

The detention bill mandates — don't glide too easily past that word — that all accused terrorists be indefinitely imprisoned by the military rather than in the civilian court system; this includes U.S. citizens within the borders of the United States.

All onslaughts on potential sedition like to cast as wide a net as possible, so the detention act authorizes use of military force against anyone who "substantially supports" al-Qaida, the Taliban or "associated forces." Of course, "associated forces" can mean anything. The bill's language mentions, "associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or who has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces." That's language that can be bent, at will, by any prosecutor. Protest too vigorously the assassination of U.S. citizen Anwar al Awlaki by American forces in Yemen in October and one day it's not fanciful to expect the thump of the military jackboot on your front step, or on that of any anti-war organizer, or any journalist whom some zealous military intelligence officer deems to be giving objective support to the forces of evil and darkness. Since 1878, here in the U.S., the Posse Comitatus Act has limited the powers of local governments and law enforcement agencies from using federal military personnel to enforce the laws of the land. The detention bill renders the Posse Comitatus Act a dead letter.

Governments, particularly those engaged in a Great War on Terror, like to make long lists of troublesome people to be sent to internment camps or dungeons in case of national emergency. Back in Reagan's time, in the 1980s, Lt. Col. Oliver North, working out of the White House, was caught preparing just such a list. Reagan speedily distanced himself from North. Obama, the former lecturer on the U.S. Constitution, is brazenly signing this authorization for military internment camps.

Read the full article at:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/12/23-2


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



ACLU on Obama's non-veto
White House Backs Away from Defense Bill Veto Threat
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


WASHINGTON – The White House today announced that it will support passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which contains harmful provisions that some legislators have said could authorize the U.S. military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world. The final version of the NDAA was agreed to earlier this week by House and Senate conferees.

Though Obama administration had threatened to veto a previous version of the bill based on these provisions, it has reversed its position. The House is expected to pass the bill tonight and Senate will vote soon after.

“The president should more carefully consider the consequences of allowing this bill to become law,” Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “If President Obama signs this bill, it will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law. The last time Congress passed indefinite detention legislation was during the McCarthy era and President Truman had the courage to veto that bill. We hope that the president will consider the long view of history before codifying indefinite detention without charge or trial.”

http://ggdrafts.blogspot.com/2011/12/aclu-on-obamas-non-veto.html


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



Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Human Rights Watch
For Immediate Release

US: Refusal to Veto Detainee Bill A Historic Tragedy for Rights
President Decides to Sign Ill-Conceived National Defense Authorization Act


(Washington, DC, December 14, 2011) – US President Barack Obama’s apparent decision to not veto a defense spending bill that codifies indefinite detention without trial into US law and expands the military’s role in holding terrorism suspects does enormous damage to the rule of law both in the US and abroad, Human Rights Watch said today. The Obama administration had threatened to veto the bill, the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), over detainee provisions, but on December 14, 2011, it issued a statement indicating the president would likely sign the legislation.

“By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “In the past, Obama has lauded the importance of being on the right side of history, but today he is definitely on the wrong side.”

The far-reaching detainee provisions would codify indefinite detention without trial into US law for the first time since the McCarthy era when Congress in 1950 overrode the veto of then-President Harry Truman and passed the Internal Security Act. The bill would also bar the transfer of detainees currently held at Guantanamo into the US for any reason, including for trial. In addition, it would extend restrictions, imposed last year, on the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo to home or third countries – even those cleared for release by the administration.

There are currently 171 detainees at Guantanamo, many of whom have been imprisoned for nearly 10 years. As one of his first acts in office, Obama signed an executive order for the closure of Guantanamo within one year. Instead of moving quickly to close the prison and end the use of the discredited military commissions, he supported modifications to the Military Commissions Act.

“It is a sad moment when a president who has prided himself on his knowledge of and belief in constitutional principles succumbs to the politics of the moment to sign a bill that poses so great a threat to basic constitutional rights,” Roth said.

The bill also requires the US military take custody of certain terrorism suspects even inside the United States, cases that previously have been handled by federal, state and local law enforcement authorities. During debate over the bill, several senior administration officials, including the secretary of defense, attorney general, director of national intelligence, director of the FBI, and director of the CIA, all raised objections that this provision interfered with the administration’s ability to effectively fight terrorism. In the last 10 years over 400 people have been prosecuted in US federal courts for terrorism related offenses. Meanwhile during that same period, only six cases have been prosecuted in the military commissions.

“President Obama cannot even justify this serious threat to basic rights on the basis of security,” Roth said. “The law replaces an effective system of civilian-court prosecutions with a system that has generated the kind of global outrage that would delight recruiters of terrorists.”

http://ggdrafts.blogspot.com/2011/12/human-rights-watch.html
137 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
K&R n/t DeSwiss Dec 2011 #1
Is anyone really surprised? libmom74 Dec 2011 #2
Surprised to find yet another Summer Hathaway Dec 2011 #52
So now being libmom74 Dec 2011 #62
"Obama breaks promise ..." Summer Hathaway Dec 2011 #83
Turley clearly addresses your version of "fact" me b zola Dec 2011 #90
Thank you. Cameron27 Dec 2011 #93
+1 Vincardog Dec 2011 #101
Turley can "address" whatever he likes Summer Hathaway Dec 2011 #102
The bill was changed from libmom74 Dec 2011 #135
Kindly take your anti-Obama BS over to freepland where it belongs. We're not buying crazy here. RBInMaine Dec 2011 #111
I thought the libmom74 Dec 2011 #123
I have to put you on ignore due to your personal attack against a DU'er. Better Believe It Dec 2011 #137
come on Obama, what are you doing... limpyhobbler Dec 2011 #3
U.S. Citizens and Lawful Aliens are exempt SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #4
raison d'etre Capn Sunshine Dec 2011 #7
Are unlawful aliens exempt? cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #8
Not anymore. libmom74 Dec 2011 #124
They are not exempt. Why do you think Human Rights Watch and the ACLU are wrong and you are right? Better Believe It Dec 2011 #11
But the ACLU hasn't read the bill! cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #13
And neither have you. donheld Dec 2011 #36
They are exempt if you would read the actual bill instead of someone spinning it for you SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #14
What does "requirement" mean in that context? JDPriestly Dec 2011 #20
"Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities..." bhikkhu Dec 2011 #22
How do you make plans to end a war on a tactic old as civilization and utilized by virtually TheKentuckian Dec 2011 #97
Unfortunately, as I understand it, the law now is rather uncertain. JDPriestly Dec 2011 #112
Exactly right Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #46
Pot/Kettle Major Nikon Dec 2011 #32
The ACLU and Human Rights Watch are always pushing that civil liberties crapola stuff! Better Believe It Dec 2011 #33
There is no exemption for US citizens and lawful aliens Major Nikon Dec 2011 #30
As other posters have stated.... Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #43
Who are also wrong as the day is long. Major Hogwash Dec 2011 #69
Please go sell that stuff elsewhere Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #95
Except for where it is clearly stated in the bill itself. The Doctor. Dec 2011 #79
Link to the clearly stated exemption statement in the bill, please Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #96
Ummm, Really? Okay, I'll, ummm.... Link to this very thread... for you. The Doctor. Dec 2011 #98
Nice try, but I don't see any exemption for US citizens Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #103
You mean where it says it in black and white... you can't see that? The Doctor. Dec 2011 #116
LOL. Keep trying Cali_Democrat Dec 2011 #117
Where? I'm seriously asking. The Doctor. Dec 2011 #118
This is how it is done: The Doctor. Dec 2011 #119
I have to trust the ACLU's lawyers on this one. Mojorabbit Dec 2011 #64
This is a weak defense. vaberella Dec 2011 #131
What's next from our constitutional-scholar-in-chief? Hardrada Dec 2011 #5
I think his scholarship should be looked at closely dickthegrouch Dec 2011 #86
This same baloney-fest still bhikkhu Dec 2011 #6
Indeed. No war = no detention based on that war. boppers Dec 2011 #16
When did the President promise to give Al Queada a break and not interfere with them in the US? Capn Sunshine Dec 2011 #9
Uh,no. He threatened to veto the ORIGINAL bill, so they changed it. johnaries Dec 2011 #10
It's worse! Better Believe It Dec 2011 #12
No, it's better. Major Hogwash Dec 2011 #70
LOL! onion belt Dec 2011 #94
LOL Bobbie Jo Dec 2011 #113
I'm being totally confused.... unkachuck Dec 2011 #15
No he did not, because that is not in the bill SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #17
This message was self-deleted by its author cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #19
difficult to make an informed personal decision cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #18
No, he signed a bill formalizing the pre-existing "military [...] power to [...] detain Americans". boppers Dec 2011 #24
It's interesting seeing Turley threads now RZM Dec 2011 #21
Actually, Turley was fine vs. Bush cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #23
I don't disagree RZM Dec 2011 #25
Attack the messenger libmom74 Dec 2011 #63
Actually, there have been countless defenses of this administration policies ... jefferson_dem Dec 2011 #121
No kidding. Major Hogwash Dec 2011 #71
The exemption seems to still be there PSPS Dec 2011 #26
It seems that section 1021 isn't what the OP is primarily about cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #28
Section 1031 is only about briefings PSPS Dec 2011 #29
A typo, I guess > > > cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #31
No, 1033 just changes dates and makes other unrelated clarifications PSPS Dec 2011 #39
Here is the 1031 section language from Turley's blog: cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #42
It's right there in what you quote from Turley's blog SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #44
Your excerpt is NOT from the final bill. Tx4obama Dec 2011 #58
it's not my excerpt, I was quoting another post SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #60
The same section (e) is in what you posted. PSPS Dec 2011 #45
That is not an exemption for anyone cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #51
In The Senate bill Sections 1031/1032. In The House bill: Sections 1021/1022, then ... Tx4obama Dec 2011 #59
There is no exemption from indefinite military detention for US citizens Major Nikon Dec 2011 #37
Correct, but with a clarification. cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #49
There shouldn't be an absolute exemption Major Nikon Dec 2011 #53
I agree, of course, but this is an act of congress and cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #55
H.R. 1540 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 RC Dec 2011 #27
Believe it or not, I have read the entire final bill and find nothing that alters 1021(e) PSPS Dec 2011 #34
This message was self-deleted by its author PSPS Dec 2011 #38
The exemption is STILL in there, read Sections 1021 and 1022 in the link below Tx4obama Dec 2011 #54
What was the final vote on that? Major Hogwash Dec 2011 #72
I trust this president to do the right things MannyGoldstein Dec 2011 #35
What a shock. LeftyMom Dec 2011 #40
Obama didn't break his most recent promise Major Nikon Dec 2011 #41
Plus one aspect alot of people arent looking at is with this law on the books its bound to be cstanleytech Dec 2011 #47
Don't hold your breath Major Nikon Dec 2011 #50
Okay, here's the deal on the language, IMHO cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #48
There is a bit of confusion going on :) Tx4obama Dec 2011 #56
Thanks for the info cthulu2016 Dec 2011 #57
Do you mislead through ignorance or deliberation? MjolnirTime Dec 2011 #61
So we should trust you for the facts rather than the ACLU and Human Rights Watch? Better Believe It Dec 2011 #65
I notice you didn't answer my question. MjolnirTime Dec 2011 #84
"Do you mislead through ignorance or deliberation?" The answer is No and you're now on ignore. Better Believe It Dec 2011 #107
Turley: This leave Ron Paul as the only candidate in the presidential campaign ProSense Dec 2011 #66
Did you just now find that Turley article from December 15? MineralMan Dec 2011 #67
Yes. And I take it you support indefinite detention of Americans by the military .... Better Believe It Dec 2011 #76
Have I said that? I don't believe I have. MineralMan Dec 2011 #80
A couple of comments. rhett o rick Dec 2011 #100
I think it is quite clear that cases involving MineralMan Dec 2011 #106
I agree that since Marbury v Madison the SCOTUS has reviewed laws rhett o rick Dec 2011 #133
Since you are opposed to indefinite detention I take that to mean you think Obama Better Believe It Dec 2011 #122
President Obama has NOT signed the NDAA bill - see comment #126 n/t Tx4obama Dec 2011 #127
The Final Authoruty has SPOKEN! bvar22 Dec 2011 #68
The Courts are the final authority treestar Dec 2011 #73
I'll let the courts decide treestar Dec 2011 #74
You so right! This is a real pro Bill of Rights Supreme Court! Better Believe It Dec 2011 #75
Do you oppose the case of Marbury v. Madison? treestar Dec 2011 #77
Obama Supreme Court Appointments are disappointing. bvar22 Dec 2011 #78
Kagan and Sotomayor? treestar Dec 2011 #81
No, but they ARE more conservative than the judges they replaced, bvar22 Dec 2011 #87
Did you say that the courts found in favor of Padilla and Hamdi? Dont agree. nm rhett o rick Dec 2011 #82
Please quote the parts of those decisions treestar Dec 2011 #91
By ALL means, do so!!! bvar22 Dec 2011 #85
Totally lost all faith in that after the 2000 election. nt Zorra Dec 2011 #89
Sounds very thoughtful...I'll leave it to the Citizens United, Bush v Gore, Bush junta affirming TheKentuckian Dec 2011 #99
k/r Why Syzygy Dec 2011 #88
Politicians consider promises (and the truth) to be conveniently flexible and open to "change". Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2011 #92
So I guess now we should all vote Santorum? NT rbixby Dec 2011 #104
Nobody should be surprised by this shit anymore slay Dec 2011 #105
Let us not deceive ourselves..... Xicano Dec 2011 #108
Unbelievable what the U.S. has become regardless of the blame game just1voice Dec 2011 #109
Yawn... more hyprbolic bullshit from the whacko purist pulpit. RBInMaine Dec 2011 #110
Your statement is a contradiction in terms mrdmk Dec 2011 #114
So was it "hyprbolic bullshit from the whacko purist pulpit" when folks argued against Bush signing Xicano Dec 2011 #120
REC. The "we're all safe" spin is not working on this one. nt bertman Dec 2011 #115
Rachel said last week that Pres O issued a signing statement tishaLA Dec 2011 #125
See comment #56 on this thread, it says ... Tx4obama Dec 2011 #126
Gracias tishaLA Dec 2011 #128
Understand clearly there are people on this board with an agenda against the President. vaberella Dec 2011 #130
Right you are, vaberella. Bobbie Jo Dec 2011 #132
The mere fact people support this post says to me DU is not a place of facts but lives for lies! n/t vaberella Dec 2011 #129
thanx Lord Helmet Dec 2011 #136
K&R (nt) T S Justly Dec 2011 #134
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Obama Breaks Promise To V...