RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Jonathan Turley begins: "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."

President Obama at a meeting in the White House, 07/15/10. (photo: Pete Souza/Getty Images)
President Obama at a meeting in the White House, 07/15/10. (photo: Pete Souza/Getty Images)



Obama Broke His Promise

By Jonathan Turley, Jonathan Turley's Blog

15 December 11

 

The so-called Homeland Battlefield provisions in the newly passed $662-billion defense authorization bill are generating a surprisingly wide range of legal interpretations. Constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley weighs in on what it all means. In addition Turley's earlier piece, "Senate Votes Overwhelmingly To Allow Indefinite Detention of Citizens" adds a great deal of additional analysis. -- MA/RSN

 

here 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.

This leaves Ron Paul as the only candidate in the presidential campaign fighting the bill and generally advocating civil liberties as a rallying point for his campaign. Paul offered another strong argument against the Patriot Act and other expansions of police powers in his last debate. He also noted that the Patriot Act provisions were long advocated before 9-11, which was used as an opportunity to expand police powers. As discussed in a prior column, Obama has destroyed the civil liberties movement in the United States and has convinced many liberals to fight for an Administration that blocked torture prosecutions, expanded warrantless surveillance, continued military tribunals, killed Americans on the sole authority of the President, and other core violations of civil liberties.

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.

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.”

I am not sure which is worse: the loss of core civil liberties or the almost mocking post hoc rationalization for abandoning principle. The Congress and the President have now completed a law that would have horrified the Framers. Indefinite detention of citizens is something that the Framers were intimately familiar with and expressly sought to bar in the Bill of Rights. While the Framers would have likely expected citizens in the streets defending their freedoms, this measure was greeted with a shrug and a yawn by most citizens and reporters. Instead, we are captivated by whether a $10,000 bet by Romney was real or pretend in the last debate.

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.”

 

Source: Guardian

Section 1031:

Subtitle D–Detainee Matters

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or 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 has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘covered persons’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+74 # BobbyLip 2011-12-16 15:30
And we thought Dubya was the worst president ever.
 
 
+51 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2011-12-16 16:46
He still is, and he would still be worse. Don't forget that there is a whole cadre of otherwise-progr essive Democrats supporting this abomination of democracy.
 
 
+22 # cris.ramirez 2011-12-16 18:14
...(I)ncluding President ObamaTRAITOR (to God, to The People, to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to human rights and civil liberties in the U.S., to the U.S. as a country, to human rights the world-over, and to the world as a whole). Thus, he is at least just as bad as Bush, if not (much?) worse.
 
 
+27 # 666 2011-12-16 20:36
You're right - obama is MUCH worse than Bush because obama destroyed hope!

(sieg) Heil to the Chief!
 
 
+24 # mjc 2011-12-17 10:10
Yes, think that is the essence of Obama's latest broken promise: hope lies dead as a doornail. I didn't vote for him in 2008 because of a very suspicious nature about some of his promises in the campaign but that doesn't mean I wasn't hoping he should succeed with primary care health provisions. FISA was the first disappointment, no single-payer health care the second biggest, and on and on. But this! Obama is a teacher of Constitutional law. He must realize that laws protecting habeas corpus can't just be snuffed-out because you need to fight terrorists. Very, very worried.
 
 
+17 # geraldom 2011-12-17 11:48
Quoting mjc:
Yes, think that is the essence of Obama's latest broken promise: hope lies dead as a doornail. I didn't vote for him in 2008 because of a very suspicious nature about some of his promises in the campaign but that doesn't mean I wasn't hoping he should succeed with primary care health provisions. FISA was the first disappointment, no single-payer health care the second biggest, and on and on. But this! Obama is a teacher of Constitutional law. He must realize that laws protecting habeas corpus can't just be snuffed-out because you need to fight terrorists. Very, very worried.


If this Bill passes, then organizations like the ACLU can sue the government by taking this through the federal court system. But, what's the point. The United States Supreme Court has been completely corrupted with a minimum of five of the nine judges, the Republican appointed ones, who will probably vote to support it, and I'm not too certain as to whether or not some of the Democratic-appo inted judges will support it as well.
 
 
+16 # mjc 2011-12-17 18:17
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is not a viable option for defeating this sort of bill. The three women would probably vote and write against such legislation but not sure anyone else might. Kennedy can always flip...as he has in the past and we know that neither Thomas, Roberts or Alito will challenge any sort of authoritarian move.
 
 
+11 # geraldom 2011-12-18 09:26
You left out Clarence Thomas's twin brother in terms of pure arrogance and balls, Antonin Scalia. Both he and Clarence Thomas were formed from the very same mold. So you have at least four guaranteed votes in support of this heinous Bill, and out of what's left, there will probably be at least one more vote that will support this Bill.

What we need and what we will never ever get is the ability to do with our Congressional reps in Washington and every member of the federal (and state level) judiciary, including the U.S. Supreme Court, what we can do with our state and local level representatives , impeach them. That will never happen.

What we also need and what we will never ever get is the ability for U.S. citizens at the national level to establish propositions where the people, as a nation, can either vote their own laws into being or can negate bad ones that were established either by our Congressional representatives in Washington or by the federal court system Instead of the U.S. Supreme Court being the last and ultimate arbiter of record, the American people should have the very last word. The American people should have the right to immediately override any heinous decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court without having to go through a long and arduous amendment process to add amendments to our Bill of Rights.

But, I'm dreaming, am I not?
 
 
+5 # steve98052 2011-12-19 02:29
Actually, leaving things to the general public, as opposed to Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court, can be bad news too. Consider how many people bought the Tea Party line and voted in that lot of wingnuts. Think how many people bought the Bush administration line that Iraq was close to developing nuclear weapons. Think how many people buy whatever nonsense shows up on the corporate media, particularly Fox.

There are a lot of people in Congress in the pockets of big business and the super rich. They helped elder Bush put Clarence Thomas into the Supreme Court, confirmed younger Bush's appointees, and handed over so much of the nation's wealth and power to the oil, finance, and defense industries.

Although regular people aren't _bought_ by big business and the super rich, a lot of them are voluntary servants, eating up the misinformation Fox News serves them.

Taking democracy a step away from the people hands it over to people who include a lot of corporate stooges, but I wouldn't count on regular people to do better because so many don't know any better.
 
 
+1 # dorianb@fuse.net 2011-12-20 01:30
We saw in the Casey Anthony trial that our judicial system is as broken as the governmental system. Can the SC system be much better at a time like this when "anything goes" and noone cares about being accountable? I doubt it.
 
 
+6 # noitall 2011-12-17 11:41
[quote name="666"]You' re right - obama is MUCH worse than Bush because obama destroyed hope!"

If there's a silver lining, it is that the People should now understand that when these positions open the door for so much money for these culls they'll say anything to get into office. "I HOPE you don't take away my Constitutionall y GUARANTEED RIGHTS." They must be SO MUCH MORE vetted during the campaign trail: ask them directly, what is our recourse if we find our you're lying once you are seated? Show me the paperwork. How can this country stand if the leadership all lie in order to get into office. Is this the standard that we accept, that the world accepts? Americans cannot be trusted.
 
 
0 # dorianb@fuse.net 2011-12-20 01:23
Obama has made it clear he is not going to protect the people from WS corruption or a police state. Obama is MUCH worse than Bush because he destroyed not only hope but trust, due process, the economy and the only thing he is committed to is WS contributers and using any means to an end to get re-elected. The man is an empty suit lacking integrity, character and a heart for the people. We need to get a better, more solid and concerned DEMOCRAT to run in the Primary.
 
 
+7 # racetoinfinity 2011-12-17 03:27
How can they be "otherwise progressive" and support this?
 
 
+14 # TJGeezer 2011-12-17 17:47
The trouble for me is, the thought of voting for any politician who supported obliteration of due process makes me want to throw up. I do believe a workable social contract needs government services... but I guess I just became a reluctant member of the hate-all-govern ment Libertarian party. "Otherwise progressive" doesn't mean a thing when people who vowed to defend the Constitution do this to the American people.
 
 
+1 # Hikerdudette 2011-12-18 05:55
Here are 45 Senators that tried to stop it.

http://votesmart.org/bill/14187/37420/prohibits-detention-of-us-citizens-without-trial
 
 
+126 # OldSalt 2011-12-16 15:30
Obama has broken every promise he ever made. Now Obama and Congress have broken their Oath of Office to protect and defend the Constitution by passing such an abomination.
SHAME! SHAME! SHAME! Shame on them.
 
 
+83 # Andrew Hansen 2011-12-16 15:49
Spot on. Regardless of the bill's language, the administration' s position is now laid bare. He does not care about restoring eroded constitutional rights. Stunning coming from a constitutional lawyer. Not so stunning given that lawyer is Barack Obama...
 
 
+5 # RLF 2011-12-18 06:05
Typical Harvard man...all about how he can get ahead and nothing about what actually works.
 
 
+81 # DaveM 2011-12-16 15:51
Rest In Peace, America.
 
 
+78 # MainStreetMentor 2011-12-16 15:57
Our citizens MUST be made to understand: The Senators and Representatives who voted to pass the NDAA legislation absolutely do not care if YOU are detained at the behest of a “whim” by an accuser with or without proof as to your guilt for an open-ended amount of time. YOU must know the names of those who voted to pass this legislation – and you need to vote those persons out of the office they currently hold. A problem: The very people who would vote these persons out of office, are, themselves, having, (or already have had), their right to vote removed by legislation in several states. The foolish who allowed that to occur are, in the future, going to pay dearly for what they’ve done – for YOU may be a victim of the NDAA law.

Our country is balanced on a razor-thin edge of toppling into the pathway of becoming a dictatorship, or onto a pathway of recovery for democracy. If RepubTeacans win the 2012 elections we will have a dictatorship. If not, all we will have is a “chance” to repair and recover our democracy. Right now is that defining moment in time.
 
 
+9 # cris.ramirez 2011-12-16 18:19
...(T)hough, with the passage of this NDAA for 2012, and ObamaTRAITOR's signing of it, we may very likely be beyond that "moment" and that "'chance' to repair and recover our" REPUBLIC (it is NOT a democracy, it is a republic!). I sincerely hope I'm wrong.
 
 
+18 # steve98052 2011-12-16 19:15
One hope stands in the way of this abuse of public trust: the Supreme Court. In most past eras, we could count on them to rescue our rights. Today, it's hard to say; sometimes they get it right, sometimes they don't.

However, even if the Supreme Court ultimately saves the day, the process will be slow. First, these unjust parts of the new law will have to take effect; most laws don't take effect immediately. Second, the government will have to abuse the power and actually detain someone under these laws who couldn't have been detained under past laws. Third, the detention will have to be discovered; the dirtiest acts of government are frequently kept hidden until a whistle-blower reveals them. Fourth, someone (likely the ACLU) will have to take legal action to challenge the detention victim's status. Fifth, the legal challenge will have to work its way through the courts. Finally, the Supreme Court will determine whether the Constitution still protects us, or whether it's time for the US to become an arbitrary police state.

During all that time, it's possible that someone on the Supreme Court will die or retire. When the next position in the court opens, the replacement will be chosen by the President, and confirmed by the Senate. Who fills the next open seat will mostly depend on two questions:
 
 
+23 # RagingLiberal 2011-12-16 20:43
I am so sickened by this disaster, I cannot fight hard enough AGAINST Obama. Of course, if it comes down to him or Newt/Romney, I will vote for him. Nonetheless, hopes that the Supremes are going to save us all is suggestive of drug use! The Supremes declared Corporations to be individual citizens. Do you REALLY think they are any less OWNED by big money than our government? You're high. Far too high.
 
 
+4 # disgusted American 2011-12-17 00:52
You can't fight hard enough AGAINST Obama but you'll vote for him. WTF?

If you vote for Obama, then you are showing support for all the horrors he has perpetrated thus far and, therefore, you are an enabler and part of the problem.

Have you no respect for yourself?

Vote for Jill Stein or Rocky Anderson or don't vote at all.
 
 
+6 # TJGeezer 2011-12-17 18:50
Quoting disgusted American:

Vote for Jill Stein or Rocky Anderson or don't vote at all.

As a lifelong Democrat I feel like throwing up. Will not, cannot, vote for any politician who supported, voted for, or signed this bill into law. I'm thinking Jesse Ventura or even the hate-all-govern ment Libertarians. I'll vote for whatever candidate voted for the Constitution or wasn't in office. Any third party that can pull a hefty protest vote. That or voting with my feet like most Americans already have done. I feel sick.
 
 
+8 # racetoinfinity 2011-12-17 03:34
but this is so outrageously unconstitutiona l on its face that the Court will have to do some fancy rationalization , very fancy. to uphold these lews.
 
 
+8 # TJGeezer 2011-12-17 18:50
Quoting racetoinfinity:
but this is so outrageously unconstitutional on its face that the Court will have to do some fancy rationalization, very fancy. to uphold these lews.

That didn't stop them in 2000, or when they handed over the government to corporations earlier this year.
 
 
+11 # steve98052 2011-12-16 19:15
- Will we have an unreliable Democrat as President, or an extremist Republican?
- Will the Senate consist of a filibuster-proo f majority of Democrats, a filibuster-vuln erable majority of Democrats, a toss-up, a filibuster-vuln erable majority of Republicans, or a filibuster-proo f majority of Republicans?

Obama has clearly gone wrong for us this time. But Obama-gone-wron g is definitely a lot better than the best we could expect from any Republican currently running for President. (Ron Paul is a voice of reason on _this_ issue, but he's terrible news on all sorts of other issues.) Without a preference voting system (such as instan runoff voting), a more reliably liberal challenger candidate would split the liberal vote, which would mean a Republican would win for sure.

Like it not, we're stuck with Obama -- or worse. The best we can hope is that Obama will return to being the person he was in 2008, and that we'll end up with a filibuster-proo f majority of Democrats in the Senate. Even that's a stretch, but that's what we need before we can count on the Supreme Court to save us from this terrible new law.
 
 
+10 # disgusted American 2011-12-17 01:00
You would vote for Obama-gone-wron g after this detention law, SOPA, escalation of wars, Obamacare and all else that he has done signifying that he doesn't give a damn about you or I? How can you even consider putting a check mark next to his name on the ballot and still maintain a modicum of self respect?

Obviously, Newt or Romney are total yahoos, so just write in your name or vote for Jill Stein or Rocky Anderson.

You're not STUCK unless you make the choice to be stuck.

P.S. Obama is the same person he was in 2008. He fooled you is all. He's getting everything he wants with all he's doing.
 
 
+1 # RLF 2011-12-18 06:08
Nothing unreliable about Obama...you can be sure he will do the Republican's bidding on all fronts!
 
 
+8 # racetoinfinity 2011-12-17 03:30
We need court cases to go all the way to The Supreme Court, challenging the Constitutionali ty of all these laws. Yes, even the 5/4 right-wing court. If THEY don't swat them down, then we're in a fascist corporate dictatorship.
 
 
+12 # Bodiotoo 2011-12-17 10:23
Quoting racetoinfinity:
We need court cases to go all the way to The Supreme Court, challenging the Constitutionality of all these laws. Yes, even the 5/4 right-wing court. If THEY don't swat them down, then we're in a fascist corporate dictatorship.

How does one who is confined without access even start a case that can arrive at the Supreme Court?
 
 
+6 # mwd870 2011-12-17 08:07
I don't understand why so many Democrats voted for this bill. Are they philosophically turning into Republicans? Are they convinced accused terrorists have no rights? Were they influenced by lobbyists? Who, besides privatized prisons, is likely to profit from this bill? Is it a political calculation in an upcoming election year?

Any insights? I think I saw a list of who voted for the bill, but can't remember where.
 
 
+11 # Feral Dogz 2011-12-17 10:15
Democrats voted for this bill because they are among the rank and file of establishment whores who above all wish to defend their property and care nothing for our liberty.
 
 
+2 # TJGeezer 2011-12-17 19:35
Quoting mwd870:

I think I saw a list of who voted for the bill, but can't remember where.

I've been looking for such a list but haven't found one yet. I WANT to know how my congress member and senators voted on this. If there's no democrats I can vote for without throwing up on the Diebold election-steali ng machine, I'll... geez, Libertarian I guess. Or look up Jill or that other one someone recommends.
 
 
+4 # cvm79 2011-12-18 06:51
I know that my Senators and Congressman voted for it because I received bs emails from them after expressing my opposition using the format which the ACLU provided on this website.
 
 
+3 # steve98052 2011-12-18 02:35
It's easy to say why people voted for the bill as a whole: it's a defense authorization act, and almost no one dares vote to shut down funding of the military.

However, what _is_ hard to explain is why any sane politician voted for the arbitrary detention or "Homeland Battlefield" amendments.

The NDAA as a whole is a routine spending bill. It's the Homeland Battlefield amendments that are the unconstitutiona l disasters of legislation.
 
 
+3 # RLF 2011-12-18 06:06
Is Elizabeth Warren a danger to the country? Shouldn't she be in Guantanamo? ( A bitter taste of the future!)
 
 
+21 # George Kennedy 2011-12-16 15:57
We continue to express our dismay at this President's penchant for inconsistency; to seek some practical alternative, one that does not require that he back up his veto threat, or actually lead. So he wins by a hair's breath in 2012. What then? Are we expecting this leopard to change his spots?

Draft Hillary and don't take No for an answer. The White House maintains Obama is being compared against some ideal standard. No, just against a standard he set in 2008 and has back-pedaled from ever since. He made no reasonable attempt to meet his own standard. At least with Republicans, we know they intend to take us back to the Stone Age. Should we not expect a little more from Obama?
 
 
+33 # Michael_K 2011-12-16 16:33
You can't be serious?????? Hillary is an unprincipled bloodthirsty and unscrupulous warhawk... One of the few pseudo-Democrat s who could be even more dangerous than our current Lying Sack of Shit!
 
 
+5 # disgusted American 2011-12-17 01:05
You got it Michael K.

Find her speech online that she gave in Holland (I think it was Holland) about preserving freedom on the Internet for protestors who should not have their freedom of speech taken from them, etc.

Take a tranquilizer first if you have a bad temper cuz this chunk of total hypocrisy will blow you out of the water.
 
 
+58 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2011-12-16 16:43
Draft HILLARY??? You forget that as Sec of State she presided over the use of our diplomats as spies. My vote is for Elizabeth Warren.
 
 
+29 # Vardoz 2011-12-16 19:13
Draft Elizabeth Warren and many more like her - Hilary is a sell out too.
 
 
+29 # noitall 2011-12-16 17:55
"DRAFT HILLARY"...WTF? if you think she would have done anything different, you're suffering from something. What has she done to move forward with any promises. NOTHING would be different today if she was the candidate. Get real. Kucinich, Sanders, there's some good people but they are not taken seriously by the D.C. mob. 'draft hillary', give me a break.
 
 
+2 # MainStreetMentor 2011-12-16 18:04
I believe you are correct in your assessment. However, the potential alternative occupent of the White House from the current bevy of RepubTeacan candidates would immediately and completely allow a direct "pass-through" of corporate/Wall Street desires, absolutely guaranteeing the complete eradication of what's left of our citizens few remaining rights. I'm NOT an advocate of Obama, but he is STILL the lesser of potential evils.
 
 
+11 # cris.ramirez 2011-12-16 19:59
"'Pure', 'unadulterated' " crud! You're talking about ObamaTRAITOR right there in your comment. HE is the one WHO IS ALREADY "... immediately and completely allow(ing) a direct "pass-through" of corporate/Wall Street desires, absolutely guaranteeing the complete eradication of what's left of our citizens' few remaining rights...", 'simply' carrying on where BushTRAITOR left off; therefore, he is NOT the lesser of anything, let alone "the lesser of several evils". You vote for evil, whether supposedly "lesser" or not, and you vote for evil. On top of that, as a result of your voting for them, you are complicit in and partly responsible for all of the evils that they perpetrate while in office (and thereafter?).
 
 
+22 # 666 2011-12-16 20:41
At least the republicans have an excuse since they are all mentally challenged idiots... but a former constitutional law professor from harvard signing this sh..
 
 
+6 # Smiley 2011-12-17 01:33
I disagree. I believe he is the greater evil because with him in there the opposition is emasculated.
 
 
+10 # cris.ramirez 2011-12-16 18:53
What "inconsistency" ?!?!?!?!?! ObamaTRAITOR has been VERY consistent... in dismantling this republic and its foundation, the Supreme Laws of the Land, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. The only things he has done that have fooled people into believing "he's done some good", are frauds meant to stealthfully further enrich his true base from the getgo, Wall Street and the globalist oligarchs who are intentionally destroying the U.S. in order to bring about one-world government and religion, and to bring the U.S. under it, which will be a sentence of global enslavement and much more mass-murder, including and especially of American citizens by our own, and some foreign, military and police, all over the U.S. and the entire globe, without mercy.

And ObamaTRAITOR hasn't "backpeddaled" from his "standard". Almost all of his campaign promises were nothing but lies which he, and those who pull his strings, never had any intention of keeping. No, we cannot expect more from ObamaTRAITOR. He is part and parcel of the neolib neocons, and he is fulfilling their will to a 'T'. All that's going on is part of the steps that the globalists have had planned for a very long time in order to systematically bring about one-world eradication of human and civil rights, and to bring about one-world enslavement of everyone.

-- to be continued --
 
 
+17 # Headzzzup 2011-12-16 20:09
Quoting George Kennedy:
Draft Hillary and don't take No for an answer.


Hillary is more of a hawk than Obama - and has to prove that she is as tough as a man - she would be even worse as Pres.
 
 
+18 # Bruce Gruber 2011-12-16 16:01
A mishmash of past and present tense legal gobbledegook apparently intended to legitimize and extend actions already taken against 'suspected' or 'renditioned' or 'detained' actors, supporters, pretenders or accused "Terrorists" in the great (if somewhat murky) WAR ON TERROR and DRUGS (ooops, delete "DRUGS" - they're for negotiations and payment and fundraising). Please don't tell me this is another waste of taxpayer money funding Congressional "gummint" 'cover-your-ass ', 'get out of trial and jail free' LAWishness! LOVE TO READ the SecDef's regular briefings "regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘covered persons’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2)."
 
 
+68 # dorianb@fuse.net 2011-12-16 16:08
This is one of the worst betrayals of Obama or any POTUS who claims to value human rights. It makes me sick!
 
 
+23 # Michael_K 2011-12-16 16:35
Not OF O'Bama, but BY O'Bama.. He's the traitor, not that he risks impeachment or prosecution, our country is already too far gone for that.
 
 
+21 # Cliffard 2011-12-16 16:17
Ok, this does it. I am definitely switching my allegiance. As a died in the wool progressive, I have come to the realization that facing an enemy straight on (the republicans) is better than getting shot in the back by your own side (democrats)

I think the only way we have a chance to survive is by getting the worst republican in there and stirring up enough anger that they will once again be sent to their hell by the next F.D.R.

I think I now actually agree with Ben Quayle, Obama is the worst president EVER.
 
 
+35 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2011-12-16 16:51
We've already tried that — his name was George W. Bush and Obama was the next FDR. We expect change to come from the top after one election, and it doesn't work that way. Change has to come from the bottom — so rant and rail at the people — and the media mannequins — who aren't ranting and railing about this worst sneak attack on America since 9/11 and the Patriot Act.
 
 
+16 # Vardoz 2011-12-16 19:12
Boy do you have that wrong. With them in charge they will finally put the nails in our coffin. This is just what they are hoping for! How about kicking out the GOP + Blue dog Dems and give the Progressives a chance to walk the walk. Voting for the GOP will end our nation and everything we still have. We should show our stuff and send in the Independent progressives. It is naive to talk about facing the enemy. BS - What have you done so far?
 
 
+13 # cris.ramirez 2011-12-16 20:05
Then how do you explain that more than half of the 93 to 7 who voted FOR the NDAA for 2012 in the Senate were Democrats?! Stop blaming it all only, or mostly, on the Republicans. It's almost all of both sides of the aisle who are traitors. It's a ONE-party system disguised as a "two-party system".
 
 
+10 # disgusted American 2011-12-17 01:19
Progressives had a chance to walk the walk but went along with leadership on Obamacare, funding wars and all the rest. Progressive John Conyers didn't even support his own health care bill HR676 (and neither did any of the so-called Progressive co-sponsors).

Progressives also voted in favor of the detention of Americans law and are signed onto SOPA which is another nail in our coffins under the pretext of Internet pirates not getting your info. In fact, they are trying to cover up what SOPA really means by running a TV commercial in the hopes of fooling people. Think China.
 
 
+6 # racetoinfinity 2011-12-17 03:39
Obama's on the short list for worst his two-faced 180 to neolib/neocon, but Shrub is still the worst, no doubt in my mind.
 
 
+7 # JCM 2011-12-16 16:21
I am not a lawyer but section (e) does seem to protect existing law to detain US citizens and any other persons arrested in the US. On second thought if somebody accuses you of (b), (1) and/or (2), how would you defend yourself? To answer my own question - it would revert back to (e) so that any citizen would still have the existing law to fall on and would then be able to defend himself in court??
 
 
+6 # noitall 2011-12-16 17:57
Go ahead, test it out. Maybe the Supreme Court will interpret it in your favor.
 
 
+29 # Stephanie Remington 2011-12-16 18:11
Section e is meaningless when countered by Section d, which states that "Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force."

Since Obama already interprets that language as an authorization to assassinate American citizens he accuses of involvement with terrorism without ever providing evidence to support his accusations, and has exercised that "authority," do you honestly believe that section e will deter him from detaining – or assassinating – more Americans?

According to Lindsey Graham, if you’re accused of supporting terrorism, you don’t get a lawyer.

Ultimately, this law is toxic whether or not Americans are exempted.
 
 
+7 # Lulie 2011-12-16 19:11
I was also wondering about (e). It seems to contradict the sections before it by saying that this law doesn't change any legal protections we have now. Is it that this law puts detainees under MILITARY law rather than CIVIL, and that "existing" military law has always allowed for such abuses? So that even though it says it doesn't affect existing law, it's talking about existing military law, not the civil protections we enjoy under the Bill of Rights?
 
 
+5 # TJGeezer 2011-12-17 19:46
Quoting Lulie:
even though it says it doesn't affect existing law, it's talking about existing military law, not the civil protections we enjoy under the Bill of Rights?

Just curious - without guaranteed due process, what protections do we enjoy under the Bill of Rights? Apparently those are for corporations now at any rate. Rats. And here I am, merely a citizen.
 
 
-1 # disgusted American 2011-12-17 01:28
Explaining to a 5-Year Old Why the Indefinite Detention Bill DOES Apply to U.S. Citizens on U.S. Soil

"This language appears carefully crafted to mislead the public..."

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/explaining-to-a-5-year-old-why-the-indefinite-detention-bill-does-apply-to-u-s-citizens-on-u-s-soil.html

A MUST read and is easy to understand.

Do Not get caught napping on your rights, lest you wake up and they be gone.

Elizabeth Warren isn't going to save you or I. She's just saying what she thinks people want to hear. She is trying to get elected. Look closely at what she supports - the fake war on terror, invading Iran, Obamacare and all the rest.
 
 
+37 # Ryguy913 2011-12-16 16:21
My understanding, after reading a piece by Glenn Greenwald, is that Obama never promised to defend civil liberties. He expressed opposition to the bill because it didn't give the executive branch enough power, and rather gave to Congress certain powers he had already claimed through action.

It's an excellent and revealing piece:
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/obama_to_sign_indefinite_detention_bill_into_law/
 
 
+12 # noitall 2011-12-16 17:58
We already know the value of Obama's promises.
 
 
+2 # racetoinfinity 2011-12-17 03:43
Yes, read GG. He wanted to veto it because it didn't grant ENOUGH unilateral Imperial Presidential authority.
 
 
-1 # Archie1954 2011-12-16 16:38
Boy did he fool us all! He's the wrong man at the wrong time but he's also all we've got.
 
 
+13 # LML 2011-12-16 18:22
All "we've" got?

I am no longer in that "we"....I choose to totally disassociate myself from him -- and regret my vote in 2008.
 
 
+6 # mwd870 2011-12-17 07:11
Obama is all we've got in 2012. After that it will be critical to reassert control over who gets elected at every level of government. Right now there are some in Congress and a few running for office who care about fixing the broken system. There are even more advocates and writers with great ideas. If the public stays informed and involved, it is still possible to make progress after 2012.

I share your feelings of regret for believing Obama's promises in 2008. However, I could never have voted for McCain/Palin. The same is true for the current Republican candidates. I agree with the comment that Ron Paul seems to be in sync on one or two issues, but is wrong on everything else.

Bad policies antithetical to the keystones of our democracy can be undone.
 
 
+4 # Regina 2011-12-16 18:39
That's the problem: He's all we've got. Every other choice now jockeying for nomination is even worse.
 
 
+17 # steve98052 2011-12-16 20:04
Exactly.

Even though Ron Paul is right on _this_ issue, he's wrong on pretty much everything else. In Ron Paul's universe, if you're accused of being a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer, you still have your rights.
- However, if you're pregnant, your rights end at your uterus,
- if you're sick, your rights end wherever your insurance company decides, and
- if you're sick and don't have insurance, your rights end when you run out of money to pay for treatment.
 
 
+11 # Stephanie Remington 2011-12-16 20:39
Even worse than destroying the foundation of our Republic?

Differences between Obama and the Republican candidates are primarily related to the fact that Obama tries to SOUND sane in his public addresses and they – with the exception of Ron Paul – don't even bother.

In terms of actions, there aren’t meaningful differences on virtually any issue that matters to me.

The obsessive fear so many people have of voting for a good candidate from a third party is based on the idea that it will take votes away from the lesser of two evils from the major parties – supposedly the only ones with a chance of winning. There is no longer a lesser evil, and third parties have been the agents of needed change in the past (the Republican Party was a third party that opposed slavery).

A wasted vote is one cast for a candidate you know for a fact will act in a way that harms your interests.

Whoever wins is up to us. If we just throw up our hands and say, “Oh well, there’s nothing we can do about it,” then we deserve what we get.

Take a look at Rocky Anderson. He's the former mayor of Salt Lake City, running for president under the newly formed Justice Party.
 
 
+5 # disgusted American 2011-12-17 01:31
Take a look at Jill Stein. She's running also. And sign her petition against the repression of Americans. I get her emails but you can probably find this on her site.
 
 
+3 # KittatinyHawk 2011-12-16 18:53
Ya all fooled yourselves
 
 
+4 # noitall 2011-12-17 00:38
Quoting Archie1954:
Boy did he fool us all! He's the wrong man at the wrong time but he's also all we've got.

"That's all we've got." MAN! that's a good one. It's like: Hey, we're lost in the wilderness and we have nothing but this shootin' iron (light bulb goes on) Hey, let's shoot ourselves in the head. Problem solved.
 
 
+30 # Electricrailwaygod 2011-12-16 17:14
Decenber, 16, 2011, a day.. that shall live in infamy! When the current President of the United States of America had deliberately and unprovoked attacked the United States of America! (His own country)! Forget for a moment about the 7th of this month in Pearl Harbour Day, as that is now past hirtory.

But TODAY, the PRESENT! When not the "Island nation of Japan" had attacked the United States of America, but when the President of The United States of America attacked his OWN DAMN COUNTRY!

Folks, its all over! The United States of America now ceases "officially" to exist! It has now, as of today, with one signature, been disillusioned and a new country the Fascist Corporate Police State of America has been born! Today is the birth of the newest country on planet Earth, the FCPSA! Located between Canada and México is presently located and where the apparently now former United States of America once was located! This is a very sad day indeed!

I am from Switzerland myself. It was WE who had offered as a gift the "Kantonal Landesrechte" which is now better known here as the Bill of Rights to America! Now that has been trahsed! Next as we had modelled our "Schweizerische Verfassung" (Swiss Constitution) after yours, it now appears that this said document has also been destroyed as well! A VERY sad day for humanity indeed!
 
 
+8 # Dave_s Not Here 2011-12-16 23:36
I live in Canada, about ten miles from the US border. Is it time for me to start looking for a rifle to defend my country?
 
 
+9 # panhead49 2011-12-16 17:15
Screw it - I'm voting for Ron Paul (I know I'll have to write it in and I know it won't matter - except to me). At least you know where he really stands. Don't agree with all he stands for but he has consistently stood by it.
 
 
+18 # Regina 2011-12-16 18:42
Before you make that choice, read the garbage by Ayn Rand, whose wacko ideas Ron Paul believes in. He and his wife even named their son Rand for her!
 
 
+14 # Stephanie Remington 2011-12-16 20:49
There is a lot I disagree with Ron Paul about, but on a few issues his views represent mine better than any other candidate (aggressive war, secrecy, abuse of government power...). That's more than I can say for Obama, with whom I have virtually zero agreement.

That said, I don't think we should be constrained by D vs R "rules" or even by who is currently running.

Rocky Anderson, of the newly formed Justice Party, has a long track record of acting in the interests of the 99%. I also think it would be a good idea to convince people we like to run for the presidency -- like Elizabeth Warren.
 
 
0 # TJGeezer 2011-12-17 19:57
Quoting Stephanie Remington:
That said, I don't think we should be constrained by D vs R "rules" or even by who is currently running.

Rocky Anderson, of the newly formed Justice Party, has a long track record of acting in the interests of the 99%. I also think it would be a good idea to convince people we like to run for the presidency -- like Elizabeth Warren.


I like the way you think. I'll look at Anderson and at Jill Stein. If progressives could only settle on one or the other, we could send the strongest possible message to a country that somehow, some mysterious way, seems still to have its blinders on.
 
 
+3 # disgusted American 2011-12-17 01:36
You have other options.

Jill Stein is running on the Green ticket and Rocky Anderson under his newly formed Justice Party.

Jill is someone you can take seriously. Go to her site and get acquainted. See what she's been doing around the country lately.
 
 
+6 # Feral Dogz 2011-12-17 10:22
Being consistently delusional does not qualify one to be president.
 
 
+9 # lcarrier 2011-12-16 17:19
I implore those who are "switching allegiance" to think of the horrors we'd face if a crazy Republican were elected (and only the crazies are in contention).

Think about it. The next U.S. president would probably have to appoint one, maybe two, Supreme Court justices. If a corporate-frien dly GOP candidate were elected, then it's "game over."

My advice to the weak-hearted is to "suck it up" and vote for progressive members of Congress. They're the only hope we have to prevent us from slipping into a police state.
 
 
+5 # LML 2011-12-16 18:24
To late - I'm not "sucking it up" anymore
 
 
+11 # KittatinyHawk 2011-12-16 18:56
They were elected, look at Obama what is difference between him and Bush? He has Biden and I wish, Joe was President. Would not say that of Cheney.

There are a handful of good Politicans suck it up...that has been too long happening. OWS get Candidates
 
 
0 # noitall 2011-12-17 00:45
Then you'd have to be hatin' Joe. You're going to church too much if you think Joe would have done anything different. If you catch the light just right you can see the strings.
 
 
+5 # mjc 2011-12-17 10:15
No, Biden is a seemingly very "sweet man" but think is more conservative... at least in the open forum...than Obama.
 
 
+5 # ABen 2011-12-16 21:31
Well said! It was "protest votes" that got us baby bush instead of Gore in 2000. Please Progressives, let's not shoot ourselves in the foot again!
 
 
-2 # RLF 2011-12-18 06:17
lcarrier sounds like a campaign worker to me.
 
 
+18 # in deo veritas 2011-12-16 17:27
Obama and evry one of the traitors who voted for this must be impeached. Waiting until Nov 2012 will not suffice. This is a giant step toward a dictatorship.Wi ll some sort of reichstag Fire or 9/11 subterfuge lead to an equivalent of the enabling act that alowed Hitler unlimited power and in effett deprive us of the electoral process regardless of how flawed it has become? Don't put anything past these vermin of both parties!
 
 
+7 # Carolyn 2011-12-16 18:26
Quoting in deo veritas:
Obama and evry one of the traitors who voted for this must be impeached. Waiting until Nov 2012 will not suffice. This is a giant step toward a dictatorship.Will some sort of reichstag Fire or 9/11 subterfuge lead to an equivalent of the enabling act that alowed Hitler unlimited power and in effett deprive us of the electoral process regardless of how flawed it has become? Don't put anything past these vermin of both parties!

It has become clear that this has been Obama's
goal. But what can we as citizens do? I would prefer Biden. At least, we know him.
Who brought Obama in as a candidate for the presidency? We voted on the basis of his rhetoric for someone we did not know.
 
 
+1 # cris.ramirez 2011-12-16 20:17
You've got to be kidding. BidenTRAITOR helped write the Patriot Act before the Oklahoma City bombing. He's just as bad if not worse than ObamaTRAITOR.
 
 
+15 # cris.ramirez 2011-12-16 19:13
Where have you been? 9-11 WAS the equivalent of the "Reichstag fire", and the Patriot Act was the equivalent of the "Enabling Act" of the Nazis, in Germany. Every "terror attack" since then has been in order to bring in more Orwellian, draconian, unconstitutiona l "laws", to more and more turn the U.S. into a corporate-fasci st military dictatorship and/or police state like Nazi Germany was, to put the final nails in the U.S.'s coffin, to bring in martial law, and to lock down the entire nation very soon (and thereafter the entire world in a "prison planet"). We're all being imprisoned and being hemmed in more and more, and corralled, until we have no True Human Rights and Civil Liberties left whatsoever, globally.
 
 
+13 # animas 2011-12-16 17:33
Now is it clear that Repubs and Dems are not do not represent the 99%!? NEVER VOTE DEMOCRAT OR REPBUBLICAN!
 
 
+16 # noitall 2011-12-16 17:46
When the administration of a government that is a "Government of, by, and for the People" take the government for themselves, isn't that administration guilty of a coup de'etat? They did this in reaction to the People using their only mechanism that they have after petitioning, requesting, begging, (and even voting for people who said they represented the ideals of the People)their government to represent the wishes of the majority of the citizenry. This failing (due to lying cheating scoundrels who got into office),the People peacefully gathered to protest. The administration has reacted by changing our constitution and calling in our military to put the people down. This is what has happened (he asks, shaking his head in amazement,,,sho ck and awe). Our only hope is that the military understands it's oath taken is to its People not to the administration. We could soon be on a par with the Chinese People. I guess then we'll get our jobs back. I guess its all about giving our rich lords an equal playing field with the other rich lords. 'scuse me, are you going to eat your gruel?
 
 
+2 # disgusted American 2011-12-17 01:42
I recently read a declaration by the Oathkeepers that you can probably find on their website. Someone sent it to me.

It's declares their stance to stand up for we the people against repression b/c that is the oath that soldiers take. I may not be saying this correctly but you get the picture. Find it and read it.

There is also a petition (probably) on Jill Stein's site that you will not accept repression nor will you support anyone who does. Find it and sign it.
 
 
+29 # Doubter 2011-12-16 17:47
This can be interpreted as a declaration of war from "them" on "us."
"We" are all 'fair game' for the government to pick off at its whim and pleasure.
 
 
+44 # MidwestTom 2011-12-16 17:49
Soon any patriotic American who believes in the founding principles of this country will be classified as a terrorist.
 
 
+8 # noitall 2011-12-17 00:50
All being done while the proud brave Americans watched their sports on TV.
 
 
+6 # noitall 2011-12-17 00:51
Hey you're catchin' on MidwestTom! Good one atcha!
 
 
+12 # tekkiguy 2011-12-16 18:03
Obama continues to disappoint.
There is no integrity there.
He is bought and paid for by the 1%

Where is the candidate who will stand up for the civil rights of the people?

Is once great America going into the trash bin of history?
 
 
-3 # Shelbey 2011-12-16 18:04
Like most of you, I have been hysterically disappointed and alarmed by this development. Reading the law though, and I'm not a lawyer but, the most important part does not seem to apply to most of us, now or ever:

b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or 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 has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

Of course, this is a slippery slope and we should all be vigilant. I don't believe yet, that Obama is the bad guy you all are trying to make him out to be. We don't have very many good alternatives -- especially not Hillary OR Ron Paul. I love Elizabeth Warren, but I don't thing she's "ready" to be president yet.
 
 
+25 # geraldom 2011-12-16 20:20
I'm not one of those who gave you a negative mark, but I have to vehemently disagree with you that this Bill doesn't cover people like you or me. As you stated, this can be a slippery slope, & it is a slippery slope. Our Constitution & our Bill of Rights do not give exceptions to the rule & for good reason. Our founding fathers knew that if they gave any exceptions to the rule that we would be opening up Pandora's box so-to-speak so that people like George Bush could use any form of twisted logic to claim that anyone he so chooses can be accused of being a terrorist or any enemy combatant.

There can be absolutely no exceptions to the rule. Everyone, including non-American citizens, must be given the chance of defending themselves in a court of law by their own peers, & it cannot be a Kangaroo court. Unfortunately, the whole of our judicial system has been corrupted with judges who are more political than fair. For example, Bradley Manning will never ever get a fair trail. His sentence has already been determined. The Obama admin is just going thru the motions in an attempt to placate the American people.

We no longer have an independent judiciary that is completely separate, equal, and independent from the dictators that are now running our country, not just at the national level, but at the state & local levels as well. If Obama actually signs this Bill as is, he & the Democratic Party will be committing political suicide.
 
 
+15 # Regina 2011-12-16 21:49
Our courts are overloaded and hamstrung because of long-held vacancies. Confirmations of federal judges are stalled as part of the NO Party's temper tantrum, sitting down on its collective duff and refusing to do the job they were elected, and are paid, to do. Some of the most qualified candidates have withdrawn, having been kept hanging for more than a year. This stalemate is just what the un-American conspiracy ordered -- the better to squelch us with.
 
 
+1 # racetoinfinity 2011-12-17 03:50
x2
 
 
+8 # geraldom 2011-12-17 09:41
Quoting Regina:
Our courts are overloaded and hamstrung because of long-held vacancies. Confirmations of federal judges are stalled as part of the NO Party's temper tantrum, sitting down on its collective duff and refusing to do the job they were elected, and are paid, to do. Some of the most qualified candidates have withdrawn, having been kept hanging for more than a year. This stalemate is just what the un-American conspiracy ordered -- the better to squelch us with.


Our courts may be overloaded and hamstrung as you put it, but it doesn't justify many of the bad decisions that have been made over the years politically supporting the government side over that of the citizen.
 
 
+1 # disgusted American 2011-12-17 01:44
Here's your slippery slope:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/explaining-to-a-5-year-old-why-the-indefinite-detention-bill-does-apply-to-u-s-citizens-on-u-s-soil.html

How this law can be explained to a five-year-old. It is filled with misleading language.
 
 
+6 # mjc 2011-12-17 10:18
The names of the "enemy" may not be al-Qaeda or the Taliban. They could quite simply be Occupier One, Two, Three, etcetera. Sure it looks like it designed just for what we all consider the "bad guys" but those designations change. That is why we started out in this country with a rule of law...not of men and parties.
 
 
+9 # RMDC 2011-12-16 18:06
Obama broke more than his promise -- he broke the last fragile threads of hope that many of us had in the Democrat party as an alternative to the lunatic neo-cons and teabaggers who have taken control of the republican party. He is just as bad as Bush. A liberal imperialist is just as bad as a conservative one. Style is the only difference.

Never vote democrat or republican. Vote third party or don't vote.
 
 
+4 # cris.ramirez 2011-12-16 23:47
On the "teabaggers" you have it exactly backwards. The "teabaggers" have been taken over by the Republican Party, NOT the reverse. The GOP hijacked and co-opted the Tea Party to turn it into an instrument for themselves and the neolib neocons, and corporate-fasci st extremism.
 
 
+19 # walt 2011-12-16 18:12
This is the most fascist piece of legislation we have seen aside from the Patriot Act. It is frightening. Even more frightening is the silence of citizens who say nothing.

Obama and all who support this bill should be voted out. Enough is enough. What change have we seen with Obama???
 
 
+7 # steve98052 2011-12-16 20:07
Actually, the internment of US citizens of Japanese ancestry during World War II was worse, but this is pretty close.
 
 
+7 # cris.ramirez 2011-12-16 23:35
Worse, for now. Wait until they soon begin rounding up "vagrants", "constitutional ists", "protesters", "dissidents", "dissenters", "critics of the U.S. government", etc. (all already considered "terrorists"), and they're sent, many if not most them never to be heard from again, to the many FEMA concentration camps already built by Halliburton and/or KBR, etc., all over the U.S., in every state in the union. Then it will be worse than the Japanese internment, right? I mean, at least, as far as I know, none of the Japanese prisoners were "disappeared" never to be heard from again, or at least very few of them were, and most of them were released eventually.
 
 
+28 # geraldom 2011-12-16 18:34
I always believed that an ounce of prevention was worth a pound of cure. It's always best to catch something early on that, if allowed to continue to its inevitable end, would be extremely difficult if not impossible to correct or reverse.

Even before Bush vacated the White House, when Obama was still candidate Obama, I told people that if Obama won, that he had to reverse Bush's course immediately, & I meant a complete 180 deg turn to move us away from the precipice that we were about to fall into, that any other direction would be fatal.

After Obama did win & started immediately to make very bad decisions like picking all the wrong people for his cabinet, I knew that we were finished even then, & when I expressed that on RSN like many other people did, we were all condemned by the majority of the RSN community. We were given very negative numbers & told that we needed to give Obama more time, that he just became pres, & this false positive attitude by the Obama devout continued into Obama's 2nd year as pres & some even into the early part of this year, that we have to give Obama more time, that he inherited a very bad situation. Even the numerous & uncountable number of times that Obama & the Congressional Democrats caved in to Repub demands without getting much of anything back wasn't enough to wake these devout Obama supporters up.

Well, now the trap has been shut. God help us all.
 
 
+18 # Scott479 2011-12-16 18:47
It's good to see Jonathan Turley here-at least our readers can't give him a thumbs down for speaking the truth about Obama who is worse than Bush-everyone here knew Bush was a fool who would damage the country, possibly irreparably, but Obama fooled nearly all of us. He has used our votes had by his lies to usher in a swift and truly terrifying end to the bill of rights.
 
 
-3 # KittatinyHawk 2011-12-16 18:51
Congress and President sure have short term memories. I am old enough to remember quite a few of their colleagues children being kidnapped, killed. Now supposedly their friends in past years...perhaps the terrorists will start going after the right people and leave the 99% alone.
Really nice upbringing, fine families and Churches eh?
 
 
+18 # Scott479 2011-12-16 18:52
Matt Taibbi said it well in describing the threat this legislation represents: "remember: This isn't about what's logical, it's about what's going on in the brains of people like Lindsey Graham and John McCain."
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/275-42/8828-coming-soon-the-indefinite-detention-of-american-citizens
 
 
+6 # racetoinfinity 2011-12-17 03:54
So 94% of the Congress is as illogical as those two? Don't think so; this is logically a move to corporate fascism, not just a irrational brain fart in two crazies.
 
 
+7 # TJGeezer 2011-12-17 20:16
Quoting racetoinfinity:
So 94% of the Congress is as illogical as those two? Don't think so; this is logically a move to corporate fascism, not just a irrational brain fart in two crazies.

The Corporate Supremes already did that when they applied the Bill of Rights to corporations, authorizing what amounts to the secret purchase of elections.

"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism as it is a merge of state and corporate power."
- Benito Mussolini, cribbing from right-wing Italian theorist Giovanni Gentile
 
 
+7 # Scott479 2011-12-17 20:58
I think Taibbi was making the point that in the future we will have crazies in a position to consistently act upon their irrational fears by calling any and all a threat to the country and worthy of immediate and permanent detention. So, yes this will be the corporate fascism you speak of and it will apply to the entire nation.
 
 
+22 # Hexalpa 2011-12-16 19:03
It has been "quite some time" since we had a government controlled by either Democrats OR Republicans. Our government is controlled by the "cashmasters" who funnel loot into political war chests. Our government is controlled by "corporate interests", and successful politicians from "both sides of the aisle" are "corporate animals".
 
 
+5 # futhark 2011-12-17 00:13
Democrats and Republicans have become the tools of the Plutocracy that alternately promotes one and then the other to keep up a facade of a "democracy" and a "free society", all the time controlling policy for the benefit of an oligarchical elite.
 
 
+11 # jwb110 2011-12-16 20:03
Under the provisions of this BIll all members of Congress could be detained indefinitely by the President. These guys think they are actually safer than the 99% when in fact that are in far more danger for being the minions of the 1%. I don't think the immunity that the Congress has hidden behind for all these years can save them now.
And for heaven's sake, they can't put the entire country in detention. 99% is a whole lot of people in the slammer. As a nation we have a tendency to be kinda scrappy and the stealing of civil liberties will make for some very strange bedfellows. People who would otherwise be ad loggerheads will now have one thing on which they agree, "They have been raped of their civiil liberties, Constitutional Rights and the guarantees of the Bill of Rights. This could bring a far larger and more cohesive 99% than the Beltways Boys can know.
I think We just got our America back because we know have nothing more to lose by standing up and fighting.
 
 
+7 # geraldom 2011-12-16 21:22
Just check out what happened to Don Siegelman, the former Governor of Alabama. Check out the following URL:

http://donsiegelman.org/Pages/topics/Players/Judges/judges_Fuller.html
 
 
0 # CL38 2011-12-20 01:23
We have a lot more to lose: our lives. But throughout history, that's what it's sometimes required to secure and maintain our freedom and rights.
 
 
+16 # Tippitc 2011-12-16 21:14
Just once before I die, I want to vote for a presidential candidate because I like them - not because they are the lesser of two evils!!

What happened to Obama the candidate?? I guess he left the building a long time ago and now we have an imposter who looks and sounds like him. Is this what selling out looks like?!
 
 
+8 # racetoinfinity 2011-12-17 03:57
His fake semi-progressiv e put on persona left the building when, right after election he appointed Summers and Geithner in November '08.
 
 
0 # RP2012 2011-12-19 05:00
I have never voted for this very reason But I will gladly vote this year and my vote will be cast for Ron Paul
 
 
+7 # sfnativecrone 2011-12-16 21:32
What happens next? A "Reichstag" fire?
 
 
+20 # jbell94521 2011-12-16 22:14
A nation of sheep will soon have a government of wolves. We can trace this back to the bulk of the American people not forcing a real investigation of any of the majuor crimes that elements of government commited in the last 5 decades or so. This was compounded by not holding the media accountable to even report on these crimes. The list is long and ugly: Overthrowing duly elected goverments in Central America, South America, Africa, and even in Iran and more. Then add in the assassination of Kennedy in 1963. If there had ever been a real investigation into that one event, and if the perpetrators had been publicly identified and brought to justice, I do not think we would be in the sorry state in which we find ourselves today.

I am not sure if it is too late or not. I will keep trying until the end. I am stubborn. I hope there are enough others who are stubborn. We need to expose the government elements behind 911. We need to boycott mainstream media that does not report the truth.

The idea of the media, the so-called Fourth Estate, was to be a powerful watchdog against those in government who would abuse their power. This is crucial to a well-functionin g democracy. We have been without more than a token Fourth Estate for many decades now. That must change, or I think the fate of this country is truly hopeless.
 
 
-1 # CL38 2011-12-20 01:19
I completely agreement with your perspective.

I've long believed that allowing the Kennedy assassination to be swept under the rug was the beginning of our long slide into hell and tyranny. Boycotting mainstream media who do not do their watchdog jobs is a great idea. I've been doing that for quite some time. And as Americans invested in getting back our country, milions of us who are able, need to join OWS and organize simultaneous marches across the country to address the madness and abuses.
 
 
+4 # Joe6pK 2011-12-16 23:56
When this president signs this I hope he realizes he will lose most of his progressives support, that while it is true we will vote for him over a ultra right-winger, he will never be trusted again by progressives. He is not what he sold him self to be, and he is a coward to boot.
 
 
+13 # futhark 2011-12-17 00:10
Why are you so surprised? "Preventive detention" was Barack Obama's idea from the very beginning. He declared his support for this kind of program in a nationally live televised speech at the National Archives on May 21, 2009, standing between original copies of the Constitution of the United States of America, including the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. Go ahead and Google it. You can find a complete transcript and a video of the speech. He had already given you fair warning that he was an agent of the security-state mentality apparatus when he was in the Senate and voted in favor of the infamous FISA Act in 2008.

I am not afraid of Muslims or "Al Qaeda", but I am afraid of national leaders who betray the trust of their constituents and their oaths of office to support and defend the Constitution by promulgating laws that violate the essence of the American political experiment by falling back on the tools of tyranny.
 
 
-2 # SenorN 2011-12-17 00:51
It seems to me that section (e) protects the existing rights of arrested American citizens and legal aliens. If not, I agree with Turley...
"(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."
 
 
+6 # Hikerdudette 2011-12-18 05:52
If you are arrested and detained in secret, who knows you have been arrested? You shouldn't be arrested in the first place with out just cause and brought to court immediately. Believe me, this will be used for all kinds of things. OWS protesters will soon be labeled terrorists. Just wait and see.
 
 
+8 # Bruce Gruber 2011-12-17 08:59
Wouldn't it be nice if this could all be a "rope-a-dope".. . We can declare victory in the WAR ON TERROR because "they" no longer hate us for our freedoms.
 
 
+9 # Bodiotoo 2011-12-17 10:31
# cris.ramirez raises a good question, why the 93-7 vote. Did these Democrats expect Obama to veto the legislation so that an over ride would have been needed? It happens so often that for the sake of "political coverage" bills go to a vote in two versions, so they can state either a YEA or NAY position and deflect an opponents questions of '...where they stand..." Political Theater!!! Obama, you are losing those of us in the middle that supported you in 08...
 
 
+1 # gdp1 2011-12-17 13:40
...so what...you screaming hyenaes:in jail you get three squares a day,and you're not using your civil rights anyway
 
 
+13 # shortonfaith 2011-12-17 16:03
Once you've removed the rights of the citizens to be free you allowed your enemy his entire victory. We have now created a public society that needs to live in fear of it's political & military leaders. Any citizen can be thrown in jail for any reason without justification.

For those who say this will never happen, I bring you Citizen's United. Where corporations have become people that can murder & pollute without fear of internment. Soon all those not working for Military contractors will be expendable. If you're not scared now you'd better get that way soon. America is a country that already has more citizens in jail than any other country on earth. Even communist China, who places citizens in jail to obtain workers for their factories, doesn't have close the % the US has. All the 99ers can now be taken off the streets immediately & placed in permanent work camps. Although against present laws, Military contractors already use prison labor in many states in the U.S. Now, labor just got cheaper & stock in jails is going up. Welcome to the New Order of the Homeland.
 
 
+2 # Dale 2011-12-17 17:56
Fascits all, dems and Republicans, with Obama now leader of the pack. Good reason to vote NO and OCCUPY.
 
 
+5 # Hikerdudette 2011-12-18 05:49
All did NOT vote in favor of this bill. Here are 45 Senators who tried to stop it.

http://votesmart.org/bill/14187/37420/prohibits-detention-of-us-citizens-without-trial
 
 
-4 # Scott479 2011-12-17 21:01
It's starting to feel like Obama is looking out at all his thoughtful, liberal, progressive detractors and saying "You're a high tech lynch mob".
 
 
+5 # Johnmccarthy 2011-12-17 23:16
All those who voted for NDAA, knowing full well that it includes indefinite detention of American citizens and arbitrary arrests without charge, bail or lawyer flies in the face of the US Constitution, which all those who voted swore to protect and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic, have just violated their own oaths of office.
Thomas Jefferson said that if future governments disregarded the Constitution of The United States it would be the duty of US citizens to remove those violators from government by any means necessary, including the use of firearms.
There are not enough military or police to arrest, control and incarcerate the tens of millions of US citizens who still believe they are bound by their oaths of enlistment and commission in the Armed Forces of the United States.
Ordering Americans to shoot other Americans will lite the fuze that will bring on the next revolution.
This nightmare is actually unfolding before our eyes. The New World Order is quite ugly to those who have, in reality, been living in a fantasy nirvana.
The lies that led us to wage wars have come home to roost. Every person who donned their countries uniform now knows the truth of the propaganda of spreading democracy and freedom based upon our Constitution is, and has been, pure BS. Those of us who have served have just received a golden shower for our duped efforts. Its all been a lie.
John McCarthy
vpocvs@gmail.com
 
 
+4 # Hikerdudette 2011-12-18 05:47
Unbridled capitalism trumps freedom everyday.
 
 
0 # Larkrise 2011-12-18 01:56
I predicted that Obama would reneg on the veto of this abominable bill. He never met a promise he wouldnt break. The man is totally untrustworthy, power-hungry, arrogant and disingenuous. He also never met a lie he wouldnt tell. He certainly doesnt govern well. He is so arrogant, he refuses to see how his actions and inactions are costing him votes. His poll numbers are not good, yet he ignores them. His decisions are half-baked or just incompetent. He is, however, the master of smoke and mirrors. The man is a sham, covered in slick rhetoric. He will not change. His pattern of behavior is blatantly predictable. If the populace werent so dumbed down, they would see this. Gene McCarthy had the courage to challenge LBJ. That, and Johnson's terrible polling numbers, caused him to step down. This is what we all need to be doing: demanding that Obama step down. He lacks integrity, courage, honesty and compassion. I am not sure there is time to get a Third Party going, though we surely need one. However, there is time to replace Obama. If he wins, it will be a squeaker, and not because I voted for him. I refuse to completely lose my self-respect. The Rethuglicans will destroy everything in sight, but at least, that will be the end of their party. Maybe some kind of sanity will rise out of the ashes.
 
 
+5 # Hikerdudette 2011-12-18 05:46
45 Senators voted in favor of adding an amendment to the bill that would protect American citizens. Most were Democrats.

http://votesmart.org/bill/14187/37420/prohibits-detention-of-us-citizens-without-trial
 
 
+1 # tomo 2011-12-18 12:26
Obama is not on our side. Never has been. Democrats have been so distracted (like a bull going after a red scarf) over Republican silliness that they have not been paying attention while Obama--often in a very passive and smiling way--has dismantled what remains of our democracy. Not only has he turned over our economy to the control (or Wall-Street madness) of our plutocrats, but he has surrendered our system of justice to them as an added bulwark of their position. Don't vote for him as a "better-of-the- evil-options." To do so gives the bad guys a claim to "authorization by the public"--they'l l call it a "mandate."

Any genuine "moving on" at this point requires a repudiation of Obama as its first step.
 
 
+1 # CL38 2011-12-20 01:10
BS. Obama is all we have, as profoundly disappointing as he's been. Voting for Republicans will change nothing for the better. They have degenerated into a party of mentally deranged sell outs who brought us the mess we're in. They will continue to make this country and our government a millions times worse.
 
 
+5 # universlman 2011-12-18 14:52
shame on you obama for saying one thing and doing another - once again

if you had just done it without promising not to, it would have been a little less terrible

in the face of you reelection you are spitting in my face as a former supporter
 
 
+1 # sebouhian 2011-12-18 16:07
I say that we should all go public, to the streets, join the "occupiers," and all other groups to take back our road to democracy.
 
 
-6 # Aduni 2011-12-18 19:55
YOU ARE LOOKING TO CAUSE CONFUSION. ARE YOU NOT AWARE OF HOW POLITICS WORKS IN THE COUNTRY. YOU HAVE TO GIVE UP SOMETHING TO GET. IF WE DON'T CHECK PEOPLE HOW WILL WE PROTECT OURSELVES. DID YOU MISS HOW 9/11 TOOK PLACE.I KNOW YOU COULD THINK OF MORE CONSTRUCTIVE WAS TO UTILIZE YOUR TIME ON MORE POSITIVE CAUSES.
 
 
-1 # RP2012 2011-12-19 04:20
We Need to get Ron Paul into office.. No one in politics has fought harder for our rights and the constitution then he has. we need freedom loving Americans from both parties to switch parties or whatever it takes to help us get him nominated as the Rep candidate..
 
 
0 # CL38 2011-12-20 01:07
Obama has broken so many promises...thou gh he says he hasn't. He allowed millions to believe he would be different...and no denial on his part will change the facts.

What a profound disappointment he has been.
 
 
-1 # Skeeziks 2011-12-20 05:46
No one to vote for. For the first time in my life there is no one put up by either the Repuglicans or the Demoncrats to vote for.

We're worse of than a third world country because we sold our souls to that big buck and have lost our way.Should a third partypop up, even they would have no one to vote for worth a vote.
 
 
+2 # jimsenter 2011-12-20 06:11
Betraying the civil rights community? That's hardly all he did. How about "VIOLATED HIS OATH TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION"?
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN