This is a must read for all those who are clamoring to defend Obama for changing some language in the bill to remove its dangerous teeth.
Condemnation of President Obama is intense, and growing, as a result of his announced intent to sign into law the indefinite detention bill embedded in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). These denunciations come not only from the nation’s leading civil liberties and human rights groups, but also from the pro-Obama New York Times Editorial Page, which today has a scathing Editorial describing Obama’s stance as “a complete political cave-in, one that reinforces the impression of a fumbling presidency” and lamenting that “the bill has so many other objectionable aspects that we can’t go into them all,” as well as from vocal Obama supporters such as Andrew Sullivan, who wrote yesterday that this episode is “another sign that his campaign pledge to be vigilant about civil liberties in the war on terror was a lie.” In damage control mode, White-House-allied groups are now trying to ride to the rescue with attacks on the ACLU and dismissive belittling of the bill’s dangers.
For that reason, it is very worthwhile to briefly examine — and debunk — the three principal myths being spread by supporters of this bill, and to do so very simply: by citing the relevant provisions of the bill, as well as the relevant passages of the original 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), so that everyone can judge for themselves what this bill actually includes (this is all above and beyond the evidence I assembled in writing about this bill yesterday):
[Click the link in the title to read details of each myth.]
Myth # 1: This bill does not codify indefinite detention …
Myth #2: The bill does not expand the scope of the War on Terror as defined by the 2001 AUMF …
Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill …
In sum, there is simply no question that this bill codifies indefinite detention without trial (Myth 1). There is no question that it significantly expands the statutory definitions of the War on Terror and those who can be targeted as part of it (Myth 2). The issue of application to U.S. citizens (Myth 3) is purposely muddled — that’s why Feinstein’s amendments were rejected — and there is consequently no doubt this bill can and will be used by the U.S. Government (under this President or a future one) to bolster its argument that it is empowered to indefinitely detain even U.S. citizens without a trial (NYTEditorial: “The legislation could also give future presidents the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial”; Sen. Bernie Sanders: “This bill also contains misguided provisions that in the name of fighting terrorism essentially authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charges”).
And to those who simply use the tu quoque canard that this is simply what the government’s been doing since Bush was in power…
Even if it were true that this bill changes nothing when compared to how the Executive Branch has been interpreting and exercising the powers of the old AUMF, there are serious dangers and harms from having Congress — with bipartisan sponsors, a Democratic Senate and a GOP House — put its institutional, statutory weight behind powers previously claimed and seized by the President alone. That codification entrenches these powers. As the New York Times Editorial today put it: the bill contains “terrible new measures that will make indefinite detention and military trials a permanent part of American law.”
What’s particularly ironic (and revealing) about all of this is that former White House counsel Greg Craig assured The New Yorker‘s Jane Mayer back in February, 2009 that it’s “hard to imagine Barack Obama as the first President of the United States to introduce a preventive-detention law.” Four months later, President Obama proposed exactly such a law — one that The New York Times described as “a departure from the way this country sees itself, as a place where people in the grip of the government either face criminal charges or walk free” — and now he will sign such a scheme into law.
- selenakissingjustin2012 likes this
- selena12gomez likes this
- ancientsattelites likes this
- occupy-my-blog reblogged this from laliberty
- crystalstreet likes this
- cgt2099 likes this
- nephyo reblogged this from jojothemodern
- jojothemodern reblogged this from laliberty
- scottraposo reblogged this from laliberty
- whakahekeheke likes this
- westernwarrior reblogged this from laliberty
- zershad reblogged this from laliberty
- tpil85kglifter likes this
- volksmenner likes this
- observedintoexistence reblogged this from littlehouseofhappy
- This was featured in #Politics
- jeffmiller likes this
- littlehouseofhappy reblogged this from laliberty and added:
- michaelangerlo likes this
- justcheese reblogged this from iambal
- justcheese likes this
- thebesstuffonearth said: I honestly can’t understand trying to defend this. I can’t for the life of me see how this bill is a good thing and I’m an actual card carrying member of the Dem. Party.
- thebesstuffonearth likes this
- lindseycathryn likes this
- iambal reblogged this from laliberty
- hannahlikefauna reblogged this from laliberty
- wyoh likes this
- jessebadboy reblogged this from laliberty and added:
- hitlerlovesjesus likes this
- laliberty posted this