FINAL CURTAIN: OBAMA SIGNS IMDEFINITE DETENTION OF CITIZENS INTO LAW AS FINAL ACT OF 2011

JonathanTurley.org ^ | January 2, 2012 | Jonathan Turley

[Yosemitest]

President Barack Obama rang in the New Year by signing the NDAA law with its provision allowing him to indefinitely detain citizens.
It was a symbolic moment to say the least.
With Americans distracted with drinking and celebrating, Obama signed one of the greatest rollbacks of civil liberties in the history of our country
. . . and citizens partied only blissfully into the New Year.

Ironically, in addition to breaking his promise not to sign the law, Obama broke his promise on signing statements
and attached a statement that he really does not want to detain citizens indefinitely.

Obama insisted that he signed the bill simply to keep funding for the troops.
It was a continuation of the dishonest treatment of the issue by the White House since the law first came to light.
As discussed earlier, the White House told citizens that the President would not sign the NDAA because of the provision.
That spin ended after sponsor Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) went to the floor and disclosed that it was the White House
and insisted that there be no exception for citizens in the indefinite detention provision.

The latest claim is even more insulting.
You do not “support our troops” by denying the principles for which they are fighting.
They are not fighting to consolidate authoritarian powers in the President.
The “American way of life” is defined by our Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights.
Moreover, the insistence that you do not intend to use authoritarian powers does not alter the fact that you just signed an authoritarian measure.
It is not the use but the right to use such powers that defines authoritarian systems.

The almost complete failure of the mainstream media to cover this issue is shocking.
Many reporters have bought into the spin of the Obama Administration as they did the spin over torture by the Bush Administration.
Even today reporters refuse to call waterboarding torture despite the long line of cases and experts defining waterboarding as torture for decades.
On the NDAA, reporters continue to mouth the claim that this law only codifies what is already the law.
That is not true.
The Administration has fought any challenges to indefinite detention to prevent a true court review.
Moreover, most experts agree that such indefinite detention of citizens violates the Constitution.

There are also those who continue the long-standing effort to excuse Obama’s horrific record on civil liberties by either blaming others or the times.
One successful myth is that there is an exception for citizens.
The 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.

Obama could have refused to sign the bill and the Congress would have rushed to fund the troops.
Instead, as confirmed by Sen. Levin, the White House conducted a misinformation campaign to secure this power
while portraying Obama as some type of reluctant absolute ruler, or as Obama maintains a reluctant president with dictatorial powers.

Most Democratic members joined their Republican colleagues in voting for this unAmerican measure.
Some Montana citizens are moving to force the removal of these members who they insist betrayed their oaths of office and their constituents.
Most citizens however are continuing to treat the matter as a distraction from the holiday cheer.

For civil libertarians, the NDAA is our Mayan moment.
2012 is when the nation embraced authoritarian powers with little more than a pause between rounds of drinks.

So here is a resolution better than losing weight this year . . . make 2012 the year you regained your rights.

Here is the signing statement attached to the bill:

————-

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 31, 2011
Statement by the President on H.R. 1540
Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.”
I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad,
crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed.
In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD),
to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force,
and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it.
In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions
that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.
Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists
that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations,
and the results we have achieved are undeniable.
Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals
with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people,
and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Source: ABC

[firebrand]

Ron Paul spoke out against it, I believe.

[firebrand]

"To speed things along, on June 10, 1794, the Committee on Public Safety issued its infamous '22 Prairial' decree, which dispensed with even the pretense of a trial before execution. No longer would the accused be entitled to lawyers or be asked any questions--unless it was for the purpose of uncovering co-conspirators. Juries were instructed to try cases on 'moral proof,' not 'positive proof.' Basically, an accusation was proof of guilt. And there was only one penalty: death."

In the first two months, fifteen hundred of the accused were guillotined.

Demonic

[politicianslie]

“My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.”

make of that what you will

First of all, you must understand that Obama thinks patriotic Americans are terrorists.

Second of all, he's sure Americans are stupid enough to let this be used quietly. Just like Nazi Germany, people will start disappearing. Few, at first; and then more and more.

They have to get control of what the enemy is saying and doing. Don't ever forget, patriotic Americans are the real enemy in Obama's eyes.

[chiefqc]

Anyone who would believe anything that mac daddy says is a moron.

He is unable to ever tell the truth about anything, ever.

[Fresh Wind]

Thing is, the left is hopping mad, especially at DU.

Even DUmmies are right sometimes.

[sport]

Do you believe obama?

[Venturer]

Look at the ages of the “Conservative” judges left on the court and you will see that if Obama gets another term he may have a better chance of success.

[Joe Boucher]

Yes,
but obammy thinks all TEA party folks are terrorists and the new black panthers and ows are his people.

[Joe Boucher]

Sooo,
If a republican wins this go around does that mean the president can incarcerate Andrea itchell and hold her sorry liberal ass indefinately without trial?
Boy that would go over well.

[politicianslie]

I think our representatives no longer represent us. Banana republic?

It will NOT stop until the hangings start.

[willamedwardwallace]

Can you point to an original source, other than Benson, that verifies the comment? The problem with Benson’s recollection have already been pointed out.

So, can you point to something other than “liberals lie,” which coincidentally has nothing to do with google, as the google books link is nothing than a snippet of an actual, in print, book by Paul F. Boller and John George.

[sergeantdave]

” It would then replace it with a true state militia funded entirely by state revenues.”

Twenty-six states do support and fund state militias. Are you a member?

[Rennes Templar]

As I said, it’s too open to interpretation. From the ABC report:

“Due process would be a thing of the past,” wrote Gens Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar. “Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States – and hand Osama bin Laden an unearned victory long after his well-earned demise.”

[who_would_fardels_bear]

Ours is a joke. And we still haven't kicked the National Guard out, nor will we ever.

What was supposed to be state militias has been essentially federalized.

[emax]

The couldnt really do that because of what i said above:

the govt would have to prove that this bill applies to them in a court of law first-esp since the bill was intended to apply only to someone who either was a member or provided support to Al Qaeda, Taliban or an affiliated Terror outfit or had a direct role in 9/11. Then they would have to come to a sort of consensus on whether or not existing law allows for their detainment-since again, this bill states that the laws regarding detaining US citizens and legal aliens are the same as they were before. And whether or not existing law and our current state of conflict allow for detention and suspension of Habeus Corpus is highly debated, thus clearly contestable in a court of law. So in a way, they would get due process-if the govt was still interested in playing by the rules and following the laws. If they werent, then NDAA 2012 would be wholly irrelevant anyway,

[dragonblustar]

I’ve seen how with this administration has worked their way around laws or reinterpret them. Bottom line, I don’t trust this president, this congress to do the right thing. If Obama signed something, it has a purpose and it’s not good for the country.

[emax]

But even if they did retire, that would mean Obama would be able to simply fill SCOTUS with judges that answer only to him. Anyone who tried anything remotely close to that failed badly, and being afraid of that approaches irrational paranoia.

[RightFighter]

The original article is wrong. Please review the text of sections 1031 and 1032 below and tell me where you find a right to detain or execute anyone.

This is the entire text of Section 1031:

SEC. 1031. COUNTERTERRORISM OPERATIONAL BRIEFING REQUIREMENT.
(a) BRIEFINGS REQUIRED.—Beginning not later than March 1,
2012, the Secretary of Defense shall provide to the congressional defense committees quarterly briefings outlining Department of Defense counterterrorism operations and related activities involving special operations forces.
(b) ELEMENTS.—Each briefing under subsection (a) shall include each of the following:
(1) A global update on activity within each geographic
combatant command.
(2) An overview of authorities and legal issues including
limitations.
H. R. 1540—274
(3) An outline of interagency activities and initiatives.
(4) Any other matters the Secretary considers appropriate.

This is the entire text of section 1032:

SEC. 1032. NATIONAL SECURITY PLANNING GUIDANCE TO DENY SAFE
HAVENS TO AL-QAEDA AND ITS VIOLENT EXTREMIST AFFILIATES.
(a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is to improve interagency strategic planning and execution to more effectively integrate efforts to deny safe havens and strengthen at-risk states to further the goals of the National Security Strategy related to the disruption, dismantlement, and defeat of al-Qaeda and its violent
extremist affiliates.
(b) NATIONAL SECURITY PLANNING GUIDANCE.—
(1) GUIDANCE REQUIRED.—The President shall issue classified
or unclassified national security planning guidance in support of objectives stated in the national security strategy report submitted to Congress by the President pursuant to section 108 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404a)to deny safe havens to al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates and to strengthen at-risk states. Such guidance shall serve as the strategic plan that governs United States and coordinated international efforts to enhance the capacity of governmental and nongovernmental entities to work toward the goal of eliminating the ability of al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates to establish or maintain safe havens.
(2) CONTENTS OF GUIDANCE.—The guidance required under
paragraph (1) shall include each of the following:
(A) A prioritized list of specified geographic areas that
the President determines are necessary to address and
an explicit discussion and list of the criteria or rationale
used to prioritize the areas on the list, including a discussion of the conditions that would hamper the ability of the United States to strengthen at-risk states or other
entities in such areas.
(B) For each specified geographic area, a description,
analysis, and discussion of the core problems and contributing issues that allow or could allow al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates to use the area as a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks, engage in propaganda, or raise funds and other support, including any
ongoing or potential radicalization of the population, or
to use the area as a key transit route for personnel,
weapons, funding, or other support.
(C) A list of short-term, mid-term, and long-term goals
for each specified geographic area, prioritized by importance.
(D) A description of the role and mission of each Federal
department and agency involved in executing the guidance,
including the Departments of Defense, Justice, Treasury, and State and the Agency for International Development.
(E) A description of gaps in United States capabilities
to meet the goals listed pursuant to subparagraph (C),
and the extent to which those gaps can be met through
coordination with nongovernmental, international, or private
sector organizations, entities, or companies.
(3) REVIEW AND UPDATE OF GUIDANCE.—The President shall
review and update the guidance required under paragraph
(1) as necessary. Any such review shall address each of the
following:
(A) The overall progress made toward achieving the
goals listed pursuant to paragraph (2)(C), including an
overall assessment of the progress in denying a safe haven
to al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates.
(B) The performance of each Federal department and
agency involved in executing the guidance.
(C) The performance of the unified country team and
appropriate combatant command, or in the case of a crossborder effort, country teams in the area and the appropriate combatant command.
(D) Any addition to, deletion from, or change in the
order of the prioritized list maintained pursuant to paragraph
(2)(A).
(4) SPECIFIED GEOGRAPHIC AREA DEFINED.—In this subsection,
the term ‘‘specified geographic area’’ means any country, subnational territory, or region—
(A) that serves or may potentially serve as a safe
haven for al-Qaeda or a violent extremist affiliate of al-
Qaeda—
(i) from which to plan and launch attacks, engage in propaganda, or raise funds and other support; or
(ii) for use as a key transit route for personnel, weapons, funding, or other support; and
(B) over which one or more governments or entities
exert insufficient governmental or security control to deny
al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates the ability
to establish a large scale presence.

[bamahead]

FUJM! FULG!! FUBO!!



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!

[emax]

But even if they did retire, that would mean Obama would be able to simply fill SCOTUS with judges that answer only to him. Anyone who tried anything remotely close to that failed badly, and being afraid of that approaches irrational paranoia.