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)
Obama Broke His Promise
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).
|
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. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Remember as OWS might say, and Wikipedia does sayt, Banks caused the Great Depression. Prof. Said also for 1829 depression so they executed him. USA banks coukld now petition GOP to move Elixabeth Warren to Gitmo? That may save your Bankers?
You ask good questions, but I asked them of her some months ago and her reply was that she would be just as strong and fearless with the other issues. I think team 99% may have finally found their team leader.
..
Elizabeth Warren for President in 2016!!!!
Wow! You heard it here first. Keep in mind that Obama quickly moved from Illinois politics to the White House.
Or, will we be happy to let them express regret and then let them go back to business as usual.
So far, of course, they've gone back to business as usual and not shed a single crocodile tear.
On the other hand, I don't care much if some of these fraudsters go to the slammer or not. I don't even care much if they are somehow forced to pay restitution. What I want is for it never to happen again ... and that means real regulation - with Glass-Steagall being the MINIMUM.
Wonder if she can get them doin' hard time and paying back some of their ill-gotten gains.
Suggest that the pillory be reinstated and line 'em up along Wall Street with rotten tomatoes or horse-shit before they begin their long trek to Abu Grahib.
Go after 'em and be as merciless as they have been and are, Eliza'!
That's all it takes to get through transparently wrong behavior to the core of what needs to be done.
I still send her what I can afford each month. Yes, we signed petitions to get her in the Senate, and we're going to do the same to make her President. No more inside cronyism and revolving doors. Power to the People.
And if she does wind up having a few bankers indicted, the author's warning that some banks may go out of business is also ludicrous and insulting. Why shouldn't a criminal enterprise have to pay the price for its crimes? And there would certainly be plenty of other banks to take their place. I, for one, am not worried.
She's a GEM because she's Elizabeth Warren. NOT because she's another carrier of the XX Chomosome.
We love her- she has more balls than most senators. If Corey Booker runs and gets in - that would also be a great addition.
Elizabeth Warren has come along-- AT LAST -- someone who is fighting FOR THE PEOPLE!!!! BRAVO, and let's ALL SUPPORT HER TO THE ULTIMATE DEGREE!!!
I THANK YOU, Elizabeth Warren, and my hat is off to you, because speaking the TRUTH is not something we hear a lot these days!!! BRAVO and MORE THANKYOU'S!!
Beverly Smith
Go for it, gals!
As a fellow member of the male gender, get real. We have no shortage of elected women to demonstrate the blindness of your position.
Elizabeth Warren is as GREAT as HUMANS come !
Voting for anyone based upon what's between their legs instead of what's between their ears is simply childish.
I agree with what you say, par, that if some banks go out of business because they are unable to operate justly and legally, than they should. In the 1930's, FDR seized a number of banks and placed them under government control until they came round. This is the sort of action that is required. Kevin Roose is either worried about sounding like a radical, perhaps for career reasons, or is a closet apologist for the financial services industry, but he lacks a sense of what is necessary in these extreme circumstances. Warren is exactly right to criticize the reluctance of regulators and DOJ officials at all levels, so extreme that it resembles nepotism.
Now, there are two ...
Not only are the Republicans in bed with the Wall Street criminals, along with some Democrats, even Obama is involved in covering up corporate crime. Attorney General Holder is also a Wall Street lackey, along with much of Obama's cabinet. Also remember that even Bill Clinton signed off on ending the protections that were instituted un Glass- Steagall, so I wouldn't trust Hillary either. We also need public financing of elections along with instilling our Supreme Court with justices that have the interests of our nation as a whole as a primary interest. Since a democracy gets what it deserves, we have become too passive and dumb as an electorate, so as to let these corporate criminals take control of our nation.
Alan Grayson is the Representative from Orlando, but he would be a great Senator. From your post to God's ear!
We need a two-pronged approach.
When a corporation agrees to an out-of-court settlement, that ought to be taken as an admission that some illegal conduct did occur. That should be a consideration for the Justice Department to seek indictments and trial for the individuals (i.e. executives) who were responsible for those crimes.
Since a regulatory agency could act against a corporation and the Justice Department against individuals there should be no double-jeoparey questions.
Show that the Law exists, for everyone.
Put them in prison along with all the poor and middle class people who may or may not belong there.
That's why we need a two-pronged approach because such an agreement with a regulatory agency wouldn't apply to an agency such as the Justice Department. One agency can't make a agreement that subverts the authority of another agency, no more than your neighbor making a deal with the city that affects your rights.
No quarter, Dr. Warren. Go get 'em. We have your back.
This woman has a handle on the situation.
Senator Elizabeth Warren wears glasses in order to see better;
Sarah Palin wore glasses in order to appear better.
Isn't it incredible that just one person can shine such a light on the path that has been lost in the slime and murkiness of government today?
Dr Jill Stein and Senator Warren!
Then we would not need to have a real revolution in order to regain positive momentum on all fronts.
But yes, BRAVO!!! and AMEN! to Sen Warren.
As senator he voted for the bail outs and as president OweBama doled out our money -- to his political friends.