PDA

View Full Version : Final Curtain: Obama Signs Indefinite Detention of Citizens Into Law As Final Act of



Elspeth
01-05-2012, 06:30 PM
Have we been "hoped and changed" right out of our Constitution? This lefty thinks so. The ability to indefinitely detain American citizens was Obama's condition for signing the bill, despite the spin that came out of the White House.



Final Curtain: Obama Signs Indefinite Detention of Citizens Into Law As Final Act of 2011 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28479)

by Jonathan Turley

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

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

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

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

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

There are also those who continue the long-standing effort to excuse Obama’s horrific record on civil liberties by either blaming others or the times. One successful myth is that there is an exception for citizens. The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is facially ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality. The Administration and Democratic members are in full spin — using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.

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

Most Democratic members joined their Republican colleagues in voting for this unAmerican measure. Some Montana citizens are moving to force the removal of these members who they insist betrayed their oaths of office and their constituents. (http://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/26/montana-voters-move-to-recall-senators-over-votes-allowing-indefinite-detention-of-citizens/) Most citizens however are continuing to treat the matter as a distraction from the holiday cheer.

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

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

AmPat
01-05-2012, 07:24 PM
Welcome Big Brother, we've been expecting you since 2008.:mad:

Wei Wu Wei
01-05-2012, 07:25 PM
Libertarians and the left-wing have been extremely vocal about this issue, but people aren't paying attention.

The mainstream liberals ('MSNBC liberals') are ignoring this as if it is a non-issue, paying more attention to celebrity bullshit while the right-wing media is too busy making up stupid BS criticisms of Obama while ignoring the real stuff.

I think the mainstream liberals and conservatives have far more in common with each other than they think. Meanwhile libertarians and Leftists have far more in common on issues of civil rights and anti-imperialism.

I see Fox and MSNBC as two sides of the same coin. They may be opposites, but their ideological existences are utterly impossible without each other. Tails isn't simply the "opposite" of Heads, it entirely depends on Heads for it's existence and in fact is heads, just the inverted form. MSNBC liberalism and Fox News conservatism are mirror images of each other, they are reversed images but they are essentially the same thing.

As mainstream right-wing ideology has failed, it has begun to rely on nothing more than being "opposed to liberalism" as the foundation of it's own identity. The same is true of Liberalism, which has covered up it's failures by identifying itself as the "opposite of conservatism". This is the true irony of their shared identity, they define themselves as being opposed to one another, even though they are actually more identical to each other.

Wei Wu Wei
01-05-2012, 07:25 PM
Welcome Big Brother, we've been expecting you since 2008.:mad:

Is 2008 when you started paying attention?

AmPat
01-05-2012, 07:33 PM
Is 2008 when you started paying attention?

Are you stupid?:cool:

txradioguy
01-06-2012, 02:34 AM
Are you stupid?:cool:

Self answering question there.

AmPat
01-06-2012, 12:06 PM
Self answering question there.

Yeah, I know. His condescending attitude drove me to it. I guess contextual clues such as: Mid fifties retired military officer, college graduate since early 80's, 20 K posts since 2005, etc, etc, don't register to such a big brain liberal as Wei Wei. I must have just awakened politically yesterday.:rolleyes:

AmPat
01-06-2012, 12:18 PM
[QUOTE=Wei Wu Wei;473134]......... the right-wing media is too busy making up stupid BS criticisms of Obama while ignoring the real stuff.
I suppose The One deserves no criticisms? Bush deserved it, O Blah Blah criticism is "Made up BS.":rolleyes:


I see Fox and MSNBC as two sides of the same coin. They may be opposites, but their ideological existences are utterly impossible without each other. Tails isn't simply the "opposite" of Heads, it entirely depends on Heads for it's existence and in fact is heads, just the inverted form. MSNBC liberalism and Fox News conservatism are mirror images of each other, they are reversed images but they are essentially the same thing.I believe your diaper is full again. The MSM had full reign on a media monopoly from the sixties, throughout the 70s, 80s and 90s, and now throw a hissy fit because Conservatives found an outlet to their liberal monopoly. The liberal MSM didn't find it "impossible" to exist without an "opposite." They simply fed Americans their vile, disgusting progressive nonsense virtually unchallenged.


As mainstream right-wing ideology has failed, it has begun to rely on nothing more than being "opposed to liberalism" as the foundation of it's own identity. The same is true of Liberalism, which has covered up it's failures by identifying itself as the "opposite of conservatism". This is the true irony of their shared identity, they define themselves as being opposed to one another, even though they are actually more identical to each other.
You don't get to make this statement unchallenged. That 2010 election spanking of liberals proves just how vibrant "main stream Conservatism" is. Conservatism oftentimes is exactly the polar opposite of liberalism. Liberalism is the polar opposite of Conservatism. Exactly how are they "identical?"

txradioguy
01-06-2012, 01:49 PM
As mainstream right-wing ideology has failed,

*cough* bullshit *cough*