What Do You Think?

[John.hergy]

I never thought I would see the day when I would be on the same side of any case the ACLU takes on.

- - - - -


http://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-bill-law

President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law

December 31, 2011

WASHINGTON – 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.”

Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again. The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA. In addition, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.

“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. Thankfully, we have three branches of government, and the final word belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority. But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAA’s detention authority.”

The bill also contains provisions making it difficult to transfer suspects out of military detention, which prompted FBI Director Robert Mueller to testify that it could jeopardize criminal investigations. It also restricts the transfers of cleared detainees from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to foreign countries for resettlement or repatriation, making it more difficult to close Guantanamo, as President Obama pledged to do in one of his first acts in office.

[John.hergy]

http://blackagendareport.com/content/barack-obama-vs-farrakhan-hedges-and-bill-rights

Barack Obama vs. Farrakhan, Hedges and the Bill of Rights

Tue, 01/17/2012

— Glen Ford


A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford

By signing the preventive detention law that his operatives in Congress helped to craft, President Obama has nullified the pillars of the Bill of Rights: due process of law and freedom of speech. Journalist Chris Hedges is suing the would-be King Obama, while Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan dares the president to charge him with “sedition and treason.” Every potential political dissenter can now be “locked up for the rest of their lives without charge or trial – essentially, on the president’s say-so.”


Barack Obama vs. Farrakhan, Hedges and the Bill of Rights

A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford

“That act signed into law by our president is an act that is destined to stop those of us who speak truth to power.”

When it comes to preventive detention, journalist Chris Hedges and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan agree: President Obama has signed and codified into law a measure that would abolish free speech and due process of law in the United States.

Chris Hedges, the author and former New York Times correspondent, suspects that “the real purpose of this bill is to thwart internal, domestic movements that threaten the corporate state.” He has sued President Obama in the Southern District Court in New York City, challenging the National Defense Authorization Act that Obama signed when most people were celebrating New Years Eve. Hedges is especially troubled, and with good reason, by the language in the law that describes who can be locked up for the rest of their lives without charge or trial – essentially, on the president’s say-so.

The people that may be deprived of their fundamental rights are those that “substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” The key words are “substantially supported” and “associated forces.” In legal terms, “substantial” support, as opposed to “material” support, could easily be applied to speech that the government decides gives “aid and comfort” to al Qaeda or the Taliban. And “associated forces” could be anybody that the president’s men claim have some kind of association with terrorists – and that, too, could be in the form of speech.

This is a dungeon big enough to throw all kinds of people into, including reporters and citizens simply expressing their political opinions. “Dissent,” says Hedges, “is increasingly equated in this country with treason.”

“The real purpose of this bill is to thwart internal, domestic movements that threaten the corporate state.”

Minister Farrakhan told a Chicago radio host, “That act signed into law by our president is an act that is destined to stop those of us who speak truth to power.” The Nation of Islam’s lawyer said the law might be interpreted as a “justifiable basis to detain [Farrakhan] in military custody without benefit of his constitutional right to trial” if he dissents with official U.S. policy. Farrakhan noted that the late Nation of Islam leader Elijah Muhammad was imprisoned during World War Two for advocating resistance to the draft. “If America goes to war,” he said, President Obama may be forced “to take Farrakhan off the streets; and charge him with ‘sedition’ and ‘treason.’”

The point here, of course, is not that Louis Farrakhan or Chris Hedges is in imminent danger of preventive detention in perpetuity, but that everyone is, because the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which provides for due process of law, and the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech, no longer exist if a president finds them inconvenient.

Black America has always championed civil liberties, and could not possibly support preventive detention. But too many African Americans have failed to pay attention to Obama’s actual policies. They have treated him like an icon, or worse, a king. Now, with preventive detention the law of the land, he has become King Obama, a monarch with no constitutional bounds. Next year, it could be King Mitt, or King Newt – and it really doesn't matter which.

[John.hergy]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/31/obama-defense-bill_n_1177836.html

Obama Signs Defense Bill Despite 'Serious Reservations'

12/31/11

WASHINGTON -- Indefinite military detention of Americans became the law of the land Saturday, as President Barack Obama signed a defense bill that codified that authority, even as he said he would not use it.

The National Defense Authorization Act states how the military is to be funded, but also includes a number of controversial provisions on arresting and holding suspected terrorists, which at first drove Obama to threaten a veto.

He retreated from that threat after Congress added provisions that took the ultimate authority to detain suspects from the military's hands and gave it to the president. Congress also clarified that civilian law enforcement agencies -- such as the FBI -- would still have authority to investigate terrorism and added a provision that asserts nothing in the detention measures changes current law regarding U.S. citizens.

Still, the signing on New Year's Eve as few people were paying attention angered civil liberties advocates, who argue that the law for the first time spells out certain measures that have not actually been tested all the way to the Supreme Court, including the possibility of detaining citizens in military custody without trial for as long as there is a war on terror.

"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 Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"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," Romero added. "The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress or internationally.”

The administration was especially sensitive about the law and about reaction to the president signing it. In addition to enacting the measure while few people were paying attention -- and many opponents still had hopes the president would veto the bill -- the White House added a signing statement specifying that the Obama administration would not detain Americans without trial. The White House also sent out a notice to its online community highlighting Obama's complaints with the law, in a tacit admission that many of the president's more ardent supporters despise the detention provisions.

"I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists," Obama said in the signing statement.

Presidents issue such statements when they feel a law conflicts with the executive's constitutional powers. Obama criticized them during the Bush administration, but has found the practice useful on a handful of occasions.

In this case, Obama argued that the changes Congress made to the bill affirm only authorities that the Bush and Obama administrations have already claimed in fighting terrorism. But he noted that the codification of those powers in law was unnecessary and perhaps harmful. And he insisted he would not use the powers to detain citizens without trial.

"I want to clarify that my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama wrote. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My administration will interpret section 1021 [of the bill] in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law."

Civil liberties advocates like Romero pointed out that once the provisions are law, however, they will be available to a President Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney or any future president, who could choose to use the powers granted more aggressively.

"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."

Because of the provisions specifying that the new legislation does not change current law, the new law leaves the authority it grants open to interpretation and to the possibility -- albeit in very difficult circumstances -- of someone challenging a detention through the courts.

"Thankfully, we have three branches of government, and the final word belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority," Romero said. "But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created, because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAA's detention authority."

Obama also said he will not abide by the law's requirement to detain terror suspects using the military.

"I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat," Obama said. "While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations."

Finally, he rejected a number of other provisions, saying the White House is concerned they interfere with the president's constitutional powers and ability to fight terrorism.

"My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office," Obama warned.