Indefinite Detention without Trial Open Thread
Posted: December 31, 2011 Filed under: Barack Obama, Psychopaths in charge, U.S. Military, U.S. Politics, We are so F'd | Tags: ACLU, Barack Obama, indefinite detention of American citizens, iran, National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), oil, sanctions 37 Comments
Today President Barack Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which, among other things, gives the President the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial. It also enshrines in law the ability of the government to use the military against American citizens.
At the same time, Obama issued a signing statement in which he says he will not use on the indefinite detention authority. As we know from three years experience, the President is a liar. Furthermore, the power will be passed on to future Presidents, and they may be less hesitant to use it. Here is the text of the signing statement (PDF), via the Washington Post. Some exerpts:
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….
Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541
note).This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “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.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that 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. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.
In other words, Obama already had the power to detain American citizens, but because he is a great and magnanimous leader he will not act on the power, so we shouldn’t worry our pretty heads about it. Habeas Corpus is available only if granted by our benign and glorious leader.
Here’s the statement released by the ACLU on the President’s decision to sign the bill into law.
President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law today. The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision. While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use the authorities granted by the NDAA, and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations. The White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA, but reversed course shortly before Congress voted on the final bill.
“President Obama’s action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.”
….
“We are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention authority in court,” said Romero. “Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today.
There’s more at the link.
World War III Alert
Another dangerous portion of this new law imposes sanctions on Iran’s central bank. From the National Journal article cited above:
The bill also sets in motion strong sanctions against Iran’s Central Bank, in an attempt to rein in Tehran’s nuclear program, by impeding Iran’s ability to process payments for the roughly $90 billion in oil and gas it sells each year. The measures, which would penalize any foreign financial institution that does business with the central bank, sparked threats by Iranian officials to cut off access to the Strait of Hormuz, which could block transportation of most oil exports from the Persian Gulf.
The administration retains a national security waiver for the sanctions – and one to waive the petroleum sanctions if it determines there isn’t enough global supply to offset the lost Iranian oil – but has said it opposes being held to a timeline that could fragment to the international coalition working to isolate Iran or potentially spike oil prices.
Please discuss the NDAA, the signing statement, or any other topics that are on your mind.
peej
Carissa
bostonboomer
ecocatwoman
mablue2
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
Glenn Greenwald summarizes Obama’s “National Security” “achievements.”
Oh yes — sing it out — 0bama is certainly the ONE.
Only a wolf in sheep’s skin could pull off this sort of evil.
This is really appalling.
The saddest part is our press is not covering NDAA and is acting as his campaign press office. 😥
Here’s some actual legal analysis of it:
And this from a much heralded ‘Constitutional’ scholar. Guess we forgot to ask ‘which’ Constitution. This is one of those rare moments when I find myself agreeing with Ron Paul–it was a dangerous precedent when GW set this thing into motion and Obama has deliberately made it all the worse. Yet he couches his comments, trying as always to deflect accountability.
Greenwald has been cutting Obama a new one for quite some time. I thought targeting an American citizen for assassination [Anwar Al-awlaki], regardless of how bad or dangerous, was highly disturbing. Where is that power derived? It’s one thing for someone to be killed in battle; it’s quite another to be killed as the result of a kill order.
That’s the problem with all these so-called security measures–the creep is ever on-going. More fear, more security, until the unthinkable act becomes standard procedure.
We’ll ultimately pay as a country for this overreach. And this continuous drumbeat for war is absolutely crazed. Irresponsible, power-hungry politicians are more a threat to Americans than Iran is.
Dark days!
Not very long ago I spent many evenings with a friend who was in her 90s. Both she and her husband managed to escape from Germany before WWII. But not before she witnessed the rise of Hitler and the reign of Nazis and the brown shirts. Hitler had absolute power — and he used it badly.
Listening to her eyewitness stories of that time — she said it was obvious at the time that Hitler was evil and that he brought out the very worst in people. Hitler also used religion and the mythology of religion as a why to control people — not that he himself was a religious man.
0bowma isn’t the ONE — he is an aloof narcissist.
Emptywheel also has blogged about the indefinite detention — as well as the Drones.
If 9/11 hadn’t happened — then bushie/cheny/rove would have made it happen (perhaps they did — there is still the case of the militarized Anthrax.) 9/11 can now be used as an excuse for the Police States of the USA. Security Theatre — to make the sheep behave. The 1% need a submissive unquestioning population.
Thankfully there are informed blogger who are willing to explain just why indefinite detention is one more stop on the road to Fascism.
It must be very difficult for your friend to see this happening in the U.S.
She didn’t trust Bush — she died before 0bama was crowned. But she predicted that it would get much much worse. In fact she sort of predicted that the Dems would elect someone who would follow in bush’s foot steps.
That is really something NWrain, that she saw what was coming…
Yes she saw — because she saw what happened to Germany. She was amazed at all the retired Americans who could see what was happening. She gave me an education — not found in history books.
It is dangerous to say anything regarding Hitler, but…
He did win a democratic election in 1933 with 90 per cent of the vote.
Voter enthusiasm can be whipped up.
My friend’s stories were about Hitler’s followers — Hitler was able to tap into the evil that lurks in some humans.
She said she and her husband watched to brownshirts pull out the books on the book shelves. They were whipped up into a frenzy.
Bush was able to unleash evil — that’s what my friend saw in bush — someone who could unleash the evil — or give permission to release whatever moral controls that advanced cultures impose on the masses.
My friend was a professor at one of the Ivy League colleges and she retired in the early 70s. Her husband was Jewish.
We don’t have to use Hitler — there are other examples — like the Rev. Jim Jones — the mass suicides and murder by his followers. He was a dogmatic cult leader.
I just finished reading the Garden of Beasts by Erik Larsen, which is about the early days of Hitler’s takeover, as witnessed by our Ambassador to Germany [Dodd] and his family. It’s a fascinating study in how first impressions [positive] slowly turn to horror as the behavior of the German government turned ever more erratic and violent. Also, the resistance and failure of many– Germans, Americans, other Europeans–to recognize and accept what was truly happening while there was still time to prevent the ultimate slaughter.
Chilling!
And the guy who was to be King in England — Edward VIII — was quite enamoured of Hitler. So I guess Wallis Simpson saved Britain in one way.
Pilgrim said:
‘Wallis Simpson saved Britain in one way.’
Good one!
Sadly, there were many enamored with Hitler, both in Britain and here in the States. Just ran across an interesting post at the Daily Mail making a comparison between the World of 1932 and 2012. A cautionary piece.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2080534/Loss-faith-democracy-make-2012-frightening-year-ever.html
Glenzilla is right. Unfortunately there is no one in power, or close to it, who will say NO!
Apparently no one, and I mean no one, in our government has the moral fortitude of Tony Blair’s Foreign Secretary who resigned in protest over the Iraq War. It makes little sense to blame one person for it all when our entire government is corrupt. Though the person at the top does deserve the biggest share of it.
Glennzilla and Brad Delong are in a Tweet war ..
ggreenwald Glenn Greenwald
@@delong Someone should teach you what a question mark means – as well as the tactic of applying your own reasoning to you
Delong just deleted a doozy that I wish i had copied …
“As we know from three years experience, the President is a liar.”
Ya got that right, sad to say.
Truly, truly appalling to watch while this happens, expecially as I had relatives die in WW11 to stop this and prevent it from ever happening again. Perhaps 2012 will bring better news, but I doubt it. It’s entrenched now, and saddest of all, it took a so-called liberal to entrench it. Wall Street and the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about oh those so many years ago made it happen and the government did nothing but abet those interests.
On a different note, I don’t often delurk, but Happy New Year to all the Skydancers.
May the road rise up to meet you,
May the wind be ever at your back
May the sun shine warm upon your face
And the rain fall softly on your fields.
God, what a lovely experience to see that. Thank you very much, HT.
You’re welcome. So few people hear the voices of other countries, and this lady is magnificent. I’m so happy you liked it. Happy New Year.
Happy NY to you too!
Just found out we’re way TOO early with all this:
neiltyson Neil deGrasse Tyson
FYI:NewYear celebrations begin 6hr too early per yr, relative to Earth’s orbital return spot. The 4yr leapday corrects for it
BBCWorld BBC News (World)
Is Obama doomed in 2012?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16376187
If he’s doomed, who would be least horrible–Ron Paul or Romney?
Well, I’m still holding out for the scenario that the Republicans can’t find a candidate and have to do so on the floor of the convention since they dumped the winner take all events. Sure looks like things will get split 3 – 4 ways.
That is the question. I do not like the Paulbots.
Romney doesn’t seem to have bot followers.
Third party?
My initial response would be Romney. But in all honesty, Romney would most likely be a continuation of many things Obama. Ron Paul has some good points–less foreign involvement, for instance–but his hardline libertarian bent [in all things but my womb and the lives of gays] is totally unacceptable. I don’t want the clock turned back to 1900, thank you very much.
Bottom line? Without an outside challenger who could actually win, we’re screwed royally. Then, of course, the question would be: who is the outside challenger? Would he/she be better or worse than all of them [hard to imagine but always possible].
We’re screwed! Only recourse is to concentrate on finding decent people for the House and Senate to replace the sellouts we have presently.
Happy New Year :0).
Holy Hannah! The Des Moines Register poll is out and Santorum is in second place!
Romney, 24%
Santorum 21%
Paul 18%
Gingrich 12%
Perry 11%
Bachmann 7%
That’s according to a “breaking news” e-mail from Politico.
The religious crackpots must be coalescing. I have a feeling he’s VEEP material, unfortunately.
Dissenting Justice
Greenwald has extensive praise of Ron Paul. But if we can criticize Obama, we must also criticize Ron Paul. He is problematic as well. All politicians are. That’s why people were so upset with Obama in the first place. They treated him a Deity. I see the same attention being directed towards Paul. He’s a cult of personality, whose passionate fans are very angered by any criticism of him. This was the exact same behavioral response from Obama’s supporters during the 2008 primaries and presidential campaign and for the first 3 years of his presidency.
ick!!!
Greenwald has a point, but in the end Ron Paul would be just as bad as Obama. He’d destroy us domestically, and the CIA and Congress wouldn’t permit him to change our foreign policy. It’s not like this is a democracy or anything.
OMG! The world has definitely gone bonkers. Rick Santorum??? The very thought of Santorum being anywhere near the WH [veep, cabinet, etc.] makes my skin crawl.
Ya took the words out of my mouth Peggy…geez dak, I’m depressed enough as it is…the thought of Mr. Buttjuice as VP (And the clown who would put him there.) just makes things even more disturbing.
Happy New Year’s, Sky Dancers!
Happy New Year back, Sophie.
Happy New Year! I hope it’s better than 2011.