Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)"President Barack Obama has signed a death knell for the Bill of Rights." [View all]
2012's Civil Liberties Apocalypse Has Already Happenedby Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitrakis
January 19, 2012
In case you missed it, President Barack Obama has signed a death knell for the Bill of Rights.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) makes a mockery of our basic civil liberties. It shreds the intent of the Founders to establish a nation where essential rights are protected. It puts us all at risk for arbitrary, indefinite incarceration with no real rights to recourse.
.... it also includes Sections 1021 and 1022, bitterly opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch, among many others. The New York Times urged Obama to veto the bill because of them. The UK-based Guardian said NDAA 2012 allows allows for indefinite detention of US citizens "without trial [of] American terrorism subjects arrested on U.S. soil, who could then be shipped to Guantanamo Bay." The Kansas City Star was equally blunt, stating that the NDAA is "trampling the bill of rights in defense's name."
Section 1021 reasserts the President's authority to use the military to detain any person "who was 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." It also includes the military's power to detain anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies under the law of war. Despite widespread public pressure, Obama did not veto the bill. In his signing statement he said: "I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists."
Read the full article at:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/19-10
Harvey Wasserman is senior advisor to Greenpeace USA and the Nuclear Information & Resource Service. He and Bob Fitrakis have co-authored four books on election protection, including Did George W. Bush Steal America's 2004 Election?, As Goes Ohio: Election Theft Since 2004 , How the GOP Stole America's 2004 Election & Is Rigging 2008, and What Happened in Ohio. BBI
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Into Law
December 31, 2011
President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) today, allowing indefinite detention to be codified into law. As you know, the White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA but reversed course shortly before Congress voted on the final bill. 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 it and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations.
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.
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 NDAAs 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 extremely disappointed that President Obama signed this bill even though his administration is already claiming overly-broad detention authority in court. Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back those claims dimmed today. Thankfully we have three branches of government, and the final word on the scope of detention authority 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 NDAAs detention authority.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/NDAA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
US: Refusal to Veto Detainee Bill A Historic Tragedy for Rights
President Decides to Sign Ill-Conceived National Defense Authorization Act
December 14, 2011
Washington, DC) US President Barack Obamas apparent decision to not veto a defense spending bill that codifies indefinite detention without trial into US law and expands the militarys role in holding terrorism suspects does enormous damage to the rule of law both in the US and abroad, Human Rights Watch said today. The Obama administration had threatened to veto the bill, the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), over detainee provisions, but on December 14, 2011, it issued a statement indicating the president would likely sign the legislation.
By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law, said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. In the past, Obama has lauded the importance of being on the right side of history, but today he is definitely on the wrong side.
The far-reaching detainee provisions would codify indefinite detention without trial into US law for the first time since the McCarthy era when Congress in 1950 overrode the veto of then-President Harry Truman and passed the Internal Security Act. The bill would also bar the transfer of detainees currently held at Guantanamo into the US for any reason, including for trial. In addition, it would extend restrictions, imposed last year, on the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo to home or third countries even those cleared for release by the administration.
It is a sad moment when a president who has prided himself on his knowledge of and belief in constitutional principles succumbs to the politics of the moment to sign a bill that poses so great a threat to basic constitutional rights, Roth said.
Read the full article at:
http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/14/us-refusal-veto-detainee-bill-historic-tragedy-rights
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
211 replies, 52000 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (70)
ReplyReply to this post
211 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"President Barack Obama has signed a death knell for the Bill of Rights." [View all]
Better Believe It
Jan 2012
OP
+1,000,000! It is so clear to me what's going on here at DU. Obama-Biden 2012!! n/t
Liberal_Stalwart71
Jan 2012
#21
Yeah, that's the best way to fight back, make sure it doesn't get slipped into the NDAA again.
Zalatix
Jan 2012
#156
not only that, but if you're against NDAA you're a GOP plant undermining liberalism
MisterP
Jan 2012
#48
It is a great relief that Obama did use a signing statement in regards to the NDAA
think
Jan 2012
#35
When have you ever posted anything critical of Obama? Don't lecture the OP about what you...
Logical
Jan 2012
#129
I always look for your posts first in any OP that says anything except "Obama is Perfect".....
Logical
Jan 2012
#179
You just don't like being called out when you are wrong. It is within the rules!
Logical
Jan 2012
#202
Eff it, lets all stay home on election day. That'll show Obama and that veto-proof congress!
FarLeftFist
Jan 2012
#9
Do you have an opinion on the ACLU and Human Rights Watch statements?
Better Believe It
Jan 2012
#17
Try to get unstuck and read the other two articles if you respect the ACLU and Human Rights Watch
Better Believe It
Jan 2012
#24
Then I'll hope you'll curtail posting in this thread due to your self-imposed ignorance
DisgustipatedinCA
Jan 2012
#100
S/he couldn't care what the ACLU and Human Rights Watch say. They are Obama haters.
Zalatix
Jan 2012
#152
Of course we are allowed to disagree, but I saw no one even address what he said in
sabrina 1
Jan 2012
#185
And what is your opinion on the ACLU and Human Rights Watch statements?
Better Believe It
Jan 2012
#19
Has "treestar" asked for your assistance in answering my question or do you normally answer ....
Better Believe It
Jan 2012
#54
So the ACLU and Human Rights "statements may be exaggerated" or they may not be ....
Better Believe It
Jan 2012
#59
You CAN'T be serious, right? If Bush signed this law we'd be in an absolute uproar.
Zalatix
Jan 2012
#153
Your post is way off topic. That could be seen as a violation of DU posting rules.
Better Believe It
Jan 2012
#22
Like the Klan, I oppose what he bellows to death but believe he had the right to express it to the
TheKentuckian
Jan 2012
#116
The Republicans agree with this bill. So is your post meant to point out the fact
sabrina 1
Jan 2012
#66
There use to be a petition at WhiteHouse. gov but it's gone due to insufficient signatures:
think
Jan 2012
#18
Here's a thought: People have FREE-WILL whether you agree with them or not.
FarLeftFist
Jan 2012
#76
Uhh, apparently you are forgetting the HUGE amount of accomplishments this President has achieved.
FarLeftFist
Jan 2012
#115
I'll be working for Progressive Democrats, very hard in order to remove from Congress
sabrina 1
Jan 2012
#117
I've seen you do it PLENTY of times, besides, I'm not able to go through your posts.
FarLeftFist
Jan 2012
#119
No, you have not. Now either post an example of my 'shitting on Obama' or this post
sabrina 1
Jan 2012
#124
Riiiight. Amazing what people tell themselves. Actually, who started this here conversation?
FarLeftFist
Jan 2012
#128
Thanks I knew you wouldn't find any such posts. Just wanted to clear that up.
sabrina 1
Jan 2012
#130
Uh, I said I wasn't able to go through your posts. Do you think I'd waste my time caring about THIS?
FarLeftFist
Jan 2012
#131
You have the opportunity to stop telling people what to do and how to think. And remember:
FarLeftFist
Jan 2012
#150
You certainly have more patience trying to have a rational discussion
Old and In the Way
Jan 2012
#159
Really, just stop. Also, I said I meant Obama supporters, as I've pointed to a few links proving me
FarLeftFist
Jan 2012
#175
No, you said I 'shit all over Obama' so I'm glad you are retracting that false statement.
sabrina 1
Jan 2012
#186
And another example of a personal attack in response to a comment that was not.
sabrina 1
Jan 2012
#203
Most BS ridden statement ever. Tell that to Clinton, Carter, and the many other Dem Presidents. n/t
vaberella
Jan 2012
#91
This would have been a great post to have a real discussion of these issues had
sabrina 1
Jan 2012
#190
I didn't think it was continuing since you claim adamantly that Dem majorities can do alot.
vaberella
Jan 2012
#196
It takes 60 'yes' votes to invoke cloture on a bill - we do NOT have 60 dems in the Senate n/t
Tx4obama
Jan 2012
#191
What I see in the OP are links to very credible Liberal Organizations that at one time
sabrina 1
Jan 2012
#198
I wonder if it would shock you, Sid to know that Greens were part of the coallition with
Bluenorthwest
Jan 2012
#162
"President Barack Obama has signed a death knell for the Bill of Rights" is not "reaching out"
muriel_volestrangler
Jan 2012
#168
He's a journalist and PolSci lecturer who stood for the Green Party for Governor of Ohio in 2006
muriel_volestrangler
Jan 2012
#109
The ACLU one has been posted multiple times. I've commented in previous threads.
MineralMan
Jan 2012
#77
Regardless of that link, do you have any link or links to pro-Constitution web sites?
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2012
#110
The same crowd was parading around DU with Andrew Sullivan on their shoulders yesterday.
bvar22
Jan 2012
#177
Thank you for a most important post, Better Believe It. Really love the concentrated attacks, too.
Octafish
Jan 2012
#68
Apocalyptic hyperbole is the haven for those that don't have the facts to win a reasoned argument.
grantcart
Jan 2012
#71
But you still haven't addressed the point we are at now, the point Bush brought this
sabrina 1
Jan 2012
#74
Unfortunately I can't. Free discussion is no longer possible because the Bill of Rights is dead.
grantcart
Jan 2012
#85
"ABA would have had something to say about it"? Did the ABA speak up much about Bush torture?
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2012
#86
Oh, that's OK. Somebody, sometime, if conditions to do are favorable, will fix it in the future.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Jan 2012
#78
It reflects how Obama is killing not only the Bill of Rights .. but also the rights of cute puppies.
JoePhilly
Jan 2012
#93
Well, I can't think of anything more important to this country than the preservation of rights.
sabrina 1
Jan 2012
#118