I'm pretty sure the way things are designed now, the war will never end. An ambiguous war on terror, stretching ad nauseam. For how do you end a war on terror, by creating more terror, and by threatening to detain your own citizens? Who's next on the "state's enemies" list? I'll post it before anyone else does. "Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating? It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself. Progress in our world will be progress toward more pain." "From where Winston stood it was just possible to read, picked out on its white face in elegant lettering, the three slogans of the Party: WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH."
The thing about is, who said anything on a war on terror? The "War on Terror" is something the MEDIA talks about. Not the government or legal offficials. Show me an official government document where the focus in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks was against the concept of terrorism. It's about wrecking those who harmed us, not just terrorists. Take, for example, the AUMF which gave the military the right to go into Afghanistan. It deals with those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, basically Al Qaeda and the Taliban. That's what this bill is mainly for - it's a giant b****fest between the executive and legislative branch over who has the final power to deal with these captured enemy combatants. That's why Obama opposed it, and the Senate was so overwhelmingly in favor of it. Not because of civil rights.
yeah, and I'm sure the spat about AUMF was about executive vs congressional powers---what with the nice little amendments. Oh, yes, vague language is always very good in terms of laws, especially vague language that could have a whole lot of a different meaning if you play around with those two terms. First, it's associated forces, then it's state enemy #1,#2,#3. And for what? A-Q has been depleted. Did the United States really go through the whole exercise of destroying terrorist safehavens, just to help codify a more repressive state in the presence of a diminished threat---thereby accomplishing what the terrorists wanted in the first place, to destroy the very notion of American civil liberties?
Your document has nothing to do with the AUMF and the wars in Afghanistan. Of course the United States is interested in preventing terrorism in general - that didn't change with September 11, that's been something that is inherently a part of the role of the state and it's monopoly over violence. But the concept of a "War on Terror" is a media construct, empty words - our most recent incursion in an African country was justified for reasons having nothing to do with terrorism, and in fact those OPPOSED to the Libyan intervention cited concerns over Islamic terrorism as a reason not to. I'm one who actually thinks that we should withdraw from Afghanistan - Bin Laden's done, and to paraphrase the great Bismarck, the fate and livelihoods of 30 million Afghanis isn't worth the bones of a single American marine. I'd also argue that it's quite arrogant to claim that the terrorists were after the destruction of our freedoms. Paul IS correct when he states that the terrorists don't give two ****s about our freedom - what American society looks like isn't their concern. Rather, it's the fact that we exercise influence in the Middle East that they don't like. But as I already demonstrated, this bill is not going to fundamentally change the way civil liberties are treated in your life and mine. The overreaction is amazing - someone on another forum claimed that this means that if you insulted a private in a bar, he could beat you up, declare you an enemy combatant, and jail you.
A-Q's motivations are myriad. American foreign policy is probably a more important factor, and I'm not going to go psycho and posit a pure "clash of civilizations" thesis where A-Q is leaping to destroy America and her freedoms, and therefore laws like this must be passed, and wars must be conducted. However, given the totalitarian bent of A-Q and affiliated groups, and the extreme form of Islam they espouse, it is just incredibly ironic that the closed, paranoid regime A-Q is most comfortable with is being brought on by the misinformed 93 senators. And yes, it will change how civil liberties are governed in this nation. The whole damn set of laws passed under both the Bush and Obama administrations have guaranteed this. Do you not see the gradual process unfolding before your eyes? Unconstitutional wireless wiretapping, torture, and suspension of haebus corpus are seen as "natural" now. What's next? This gradual erosion of civil liberties is alarming; but even more so is the apathy. It almost seems like "terror" has has deafened the average American, and made it seem like these things are the ways things have always been.
Why does their party matter when their ideology is the same? It wouldn't have mattered who the President was. Obama's appointments would have been just as bad for civil liberties as McCain's. That's why I think it's naive to support a guy whose shown that he's no friend to civil liberties based on some preconceived notion that the people he appoints from his party will protect civil liberties. The same would apply regardless of whom is in power.
I frankly don't know as much about wire tapping as I should as I've never really researched it, but I do know that wire tapping is hardly something which is new and began with the War on Terror. Our forces have used it to investigate criminals and stuff. How has torture changed or not changed under Obama? Can you talk about it? As I've demonstrated, it's not that it's "natural", it's simply needless panic about something which is ultimately a dick waving contest between two branches of the government, which is old as this republic. You never addressed my question, in the end - if an Al Qaeda member makes it into American territory, do we no longer treat him like he is one as opposed to if we find him in Afghanistan? All you did was go onto some rant on how this War on Terror is endless, something which isn't true because there is no War on Terror - those words are just the 24/7 news cycle spinning the ongoing conflict against Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Give me a break. Numerous (you can google it, I find this silly) law scholars have made it clear that Greenwald's interpretation is correct. The ACLU has a great write up on it. ****, that was the motive for the white house to threaten to veto.
"Crazy" Ron Paul explains his opposition to the NDAA 12/19/11 <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/z8bbuMQLlqs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Ron Paul: "This [act] is really, really bad," and "very dangerous." Although it was the last question of the night during a Monday night campaign stop at the Executive Court in Manchester, it was the one Ron Paul took the most time to explain – what is the National Defense Authorization Act and what should people understand about changes made for 2012.
We get our first glimpse at what might be considered ""substantially supporting al-Qaueda, the Taliban, or associated forces":
Some of that kinda reminds me of the premise of that movie with Tom Cruise called Minority Report where Cruise's character goes around arresting people for crimes they hadn't officially committed yet.
OBAMA WORSE THAN BUSH Obama's abysmal record on civil liberties http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/dec/23/obama-abysmal-record-civil-liberty Mehdi Hasan guardian.co.uk, Friday 23 December 2011 14.45 EST Here we are. More than 10 years after the 9/11 attacks, more than six months since the killing of Osama bin Laden and less than a year away from the next presidential election, Barack Obama is about to sign into law the National Defence Authorisation Act (NDAA). It authorises the indefinite detention in military custody of US citizens who are suspected of having "substantially supported" al-Qaida, the Taliban or "associated forces" – and makes such detention mandatory for foreign nationals who are accused of having links to al-Qaida. In fact, say civil liberties lawyers and human rights groups, this pernicious and Orwellian piece of legislation doesn't only enshrine in US law (in sections 1021 and 1022) indefinite military imprisonment without trial for terror suspects, but also makes it much easier for the government to transfer – or "render" – US citizens to foreign regimes for interrogation or incarceration, (also section 1021) and much more difficult to close the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay(sections 1023, 1026, 1027, and 1028). Obama and the Democrats have a great deal to answer for. This brazen militarisation of US civilian justice and law enforcement cannot just be laid at the door of dastardly Republicans in Congress. In the Senate, the bill was co-sponsored by a Democratic senator, Carl Levin; in the House of Representatives, it sailed through with the support of 93 Democrats, including the minority leader, Nancy Pelosi (despite being opposed by, among others, the directors of the FBI and the CIA, the attorney general and the defence secretary). The president has the power to veto the bill and, initially, his aides had suggested he would do so. However, citing vague "changes" to the language of the bill, Obama – the most veto-shy president since James Garfield in the 1880s – made a U-turn this month and withdrew his veto threat in what a New York Times editorial called "a complete political cave-in, one that reinforces the impression of a fumbling presidency". But this isn't about the president's political incompetence or abject weakness. It is, above all, yet another example of Obama's refusal to stand up for civil liberties and the rule of law. Over the past three years, the former constitutional law professor has failed to close Guantánamo Bay, expanded the detention facility at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan, defended the use of warrantless surveillance and military tribunals, and – shockingly – asserted the right to assassinate, via drone strike and without due process, US citizens he deems to be terrorists. As the leading US legal scholar Jonathan Turley has argued, "the election of Barack Obama may stand as one of the single most devastating events in our history for civil liberties". It is hard not to like or admire Obama as a person: the president is intelligent, reasonable, eloquent and witty. But presidents should be judged on their policies, not personalities; their records, not their rhetoric. Obama, however, has been handed a pass on indefinite military detention by the same liberals, progressives and Democrats who were so outraged and disgusted by the Bush administration's much milder Patriot Act. Liberals have to ask themselves: do civil liberties and human rights only matter when a Republican is sitting in the Oval Office? A few weeks ago, at a private dinner, I was assailed by a senior state department official for echoing Turley's critique of the president and for daring to compare Obama to his Republican predecessor. In fact, I now regret saying Obama was similar to Bush. When it comes to civil liberties, once he signs the NDAA into law, he will be worse.
the answer to that question could not be more pathetically obvious. but on the flip-side, one could ask "conservatives" if fiscal responsibility and limited government only matter when a democrat is sitting in the oval office.
I'm coming late to this but this act makes me pretty uneasy. I'm with Deckard and others that Obama has been pretty disappointing regarding civil liberties.
I have a couple questions for all those who voted for Obama but are now considering voting for Ron Paul. Do you think Ron Paul will make it out of the Republican nomination process? If he doesn't would you write in Ron Paul? Lastly do you think a vote for Ron Paul will lead to any major change regarding civil liberties? I am not going accuse anyone of wasting their vote and think you should vote for who ever you like. I am just curious how much people are looking at this as a protest vote versus a vote that could lead to a Paul presidency. I am willing to say all things being essentially the same between now and the election I will vote for Obama. While he has been disappointing on civil liberties I am not a one issue voter and in overall agree with him more than disagree. I also think that while Obama's appointments to the UNSC are not stellar regarding civil liberties they are better than the previous Republican appointments. I certainly think there is a big difference between Elena Kagan and Joseph Alito.
Interesting. In my thinking as a voter, this is issue along with transparency are my most important criteria in considering our leadership.
The NDAA Repeals More Rights Tuesday, December 27, 2011 – by Ron Paul <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xm19GQKNWeM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Little by little, in the name of fighting terrorism, our Bill of Rights is being repealed. The 4th Amendment has been rendered toothless by the PATRIOT Act. No more can we truly feel secure in our persons, houses, papers and effects when now there is an exception that fits nearly any excuse for our government to search and seize our property. Of course, the vast majority of Americans may say, "I'm not a terrorist so I have no reason to worry." However, innocent people are wrongly accused all the time. The Bill of Rights is there precisely because the founders wanted to set a very high bar for the government to overcome in order to deprive an individual of life or liberty. To lower that bar is to endanger everyone. When the bar is low enough to include political enemies, our descent into totalitarianism is virtually assured. The PATRIOT Act, as bad is its violation of the 4th Amendment, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) continues that slip toward tyranny and, in fact, accelerates it significantly. The main section of concern, Section 1021 of the NDAA Conference Report, does to the 5th Amendment what the PATRIOT Act does to the 4th. The 5th Amendment is about much more than the right to remain silent in the face of government questioning. It contains very basic and very critical stipulations about due process of law. The government cannot imprison a person for no reason and with no evidence presented or access to legal counsel. The dangers in the NDAA are its alarmingly vague, undefined criteria for who can be indefinitely detained by the US government without trial. It is now no longer limited to members of al Qaeda or the Taliban, but anyone accused of "substantially supporting" such groups or "associated forces." How closely associated? And what constitutes "substantial" support? What if it was discovered that someone who committed a terrorist act was once involved with a charity? Or supported a political candidate? Are all donors of that charity or supporters of that candidate now suspect, and subject to indefinite detainment? Is that charity now an associated force? Additionally, this legislation codifies in law for the first time authority to detain Americans that has to this point only been claimed by President Obama. According to subsection (e) of section 1021, "[n]othing 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." This means the president's widely expanded view of his own authority to detain Americans indefinitely even on American soil is for the first time in this legislation codified in law. That should chill all of us to our cores. The Bill of Rights has no exemptions for "really bad people" or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. That is not a weakness in our legal system; it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the bill of rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war, and the entire Unites States is a battlefield in the War on Terror. This is a very dangerous development indeed. Beware.
Congress, Obama Codify Indefinite Detention by Sheldon Richman, December 27, 2011 In yet another reversal of his professed commitment to the rule of law, President Obama says he will sign the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which formalizes his authority to imprison terrorism suspects indefinitely without charge or trial. Where is the “progressive” outrage? George W. Bush and Obama both claimed that the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) empowered them to have the military hold people merely suspected of association with al-Qaeda or related organizations without charge for the duration of the “war on terror.” It didn’t matter if the suspect was a foreigner, a U.S. citizen, or a legal resident. It also didn’t matter if the alleged offense was committed inside or outside the United States. The battlefield encompassed the whole world. In interpreting the AUMF this way, both administrations went well beyond its language. On its face, the AUMF only authorizes “the President … to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” Clearly the power is restricted to people involved in 9/11 and those who protected them. Yet under novel theories of the executive branch’s constitutional authority, this was turned into a virtual blank check. The AUMF also makes no reference to indefinite detention or to turning citizens and legal residents over to the military, rather than civilian law enforcement, when they are merely suspected of being involved in a vague class of activities such as “supporting” “associated forces” in the commission of belligerent acts. Regardless of the absence of the relevant language, both the Bush and Obama administrations claimed these broad powers that make a mockery of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights’ Fifth Amendment in particular. Now these powers have been formally set down on paper. Ironically, the Obama administration hinted at a veto of the bill because it introduced restrictions on its authority. Carrying on the Bush philosophy that under the Constitution the executive branch has virtually unlimited power, Obama objected to any congressional intrusion into its prerogatives, even if only to codify authority already claimed and exercised. For example, one section requires the executive branch to turn over to the military a person suspected of terrorism. Note that this would even include individuals resisting the American occupation of Afghanistan or the bombing in Sudan or Somalia. It could also include someone who innocently gave money to a charity not knowing it had some connection to an “associated” organization. But the Obama administration did not like being required to do this. Rather, it prefers to have it as an option. In the end, the administration was granted the power to use civilian courts, but only after filing a waiver with Congress. The section goes on to say that included within the military’s authority is “detention under the law of war without trial until the end of hostilities.” This section, however, exempts Americans citizens captured inside the country. The next section does apply to American citizens and other legal residents. Although it explicitly says the administration is not required to turn them over to the military, it may do so if it wishes. Obama successfully opposed a blanket prohibition in this section against the military detention of American citizens. As one of its defenders, Sen. Lindsey Graham, said of the provision: “The statement of authority to detain does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.” This shouldn’t be surprising: Obama already claims the authority to kill Americans without due process. Obama’s intention to sign the NDAA tells us exactly where he stands on the Bill of Rights. As Human Rights Watch put it: “President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.” The late Chalmers Johnson, the scholar who did so much to chronicle America’s world domination, liked to say that you either abolish the empire or live under it. Is there any doubt he was right? http://www.fff.org/comment/com1112cc.asp
