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 in unwitting bliss 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 (see the text of the statement here).
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 Senator Carl Levin (Democrat, Michigan) went to the floor and disclosed that it was the White House and 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 longstanding effort to excuse Obama's horrific record on civil liberties by blaming either 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 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 as not just subject to indefinite detention but even to execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality.
The Obama administration and Democratic members are in full spin mode – 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 authorisation 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 Senator Levin, the White House conducted a misinformation campaign to secure this power while portraying the president 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 un-American measure. Some Montana citizens are moving to force the removal of these members who, they insist, betrayed their oaths of office and their constituents. 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.
• This article was originally published on Jonathan Turley's blog and is crossposted by kind permission of the author
;
Comments
Sign in to comment or to join the conversation
2 January 2012 05:01PM
America is quietly turning into a fascist state
2 January 2012 05:02PM
The parallels between the Obama administration and that of Nazi Germany are quite striking.
When fascism comes to America it will arrive bearing a cross wrapped in the Stars and Stripes.
2 January 2012 05:09PM
Totally misleading headline, as usual.
Obama refused to sign the bill with the part allowing the military to detain prisoners indefinitely.
As a compromise he allowed the bill to go through with all it's other essential part on provision only he would have that authority, and and the same time saying that he would never use it. It's called pragmatism, and yes, it sucks.
Typical deadlock politics - it's not about what gets signed, but how it looks, and who can be 'blamed' later.
2 January 2012 05:09PM
Thanks for this, Jonathan. I note that the one Republican presidential candidate who has opposed not only this terrifyingly draconian measure but also the Patriot Act AND its extension, Ron Paul, is continually vilified by the Guardian as an 'extremist' while the man responsible for signing these attacks against civil liberties into law is tirelessly excused by the very same 'liberal' Guardian and many of its commenters as an honourable and radical man undone by right-wing Republican forces. Will the liberal and media and self-proclaimed progressives ever get out of lockstep mode?
2 January 2012 05:15PM
notreallyasockpuppet
2 January 2012 05:09PM
Totally misleading headline, as usual.
As a compromise Obama allowed the bill to go through with all it's other essential part on provision only he would have that authority, and and the same time saying that he would never use it.
The problem with this strategy is that subsequent US Presidents will not be constrained by Obama's feeble opinions. They will act on their own agenda.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
2 January 2012 05:19PM
Hmmmm........ Lincoln suspened habeas corpus during the civil war, didn't he ? Different times and circumstances but it shows such measures are not unprecedented.
2 January 2012 05:19PM
Care to make any? That is such a lazy comparison.
2 January 2012 05:21PM
If this is how he's going to beat the Republicans, by being even more right wing than them, then no thanks.
2 January 2012 05:24PM
".....America is quietly turning into a fascist state..."
Thank God you are there to fill us in on the truth. Oh, by the way, how is it that America is turning into a fascist state while France and Belgium banned women from wearing burkas in public. That seems to be an assault on religious freedom in Europe. Of course, Europe is where fascism thrived - so I guess its not too surprising
2 January 2012 05:24PM
Carl Levin admitted on the floor that the Obama admin threatened to veto the bill if it DID NOT contain language that INCLUDED the president's authority to indefinitely detain, without trial, Americans. There is VIDEO on YouTube. Here is one link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DNDHbT44cY
Do a YouTube search for: NDAA Carl Levin.
This is ANOTHER one of Obama's lies and politricks. He publicly says one thing as he works behind the scenes to do another. I love how he includes an explanation stating that he doesn't really, truly agree with detaining folks indefinitely without due process but signed a law that does just that.
Also, there is an absolute blackout in mainstream media and even on some of the more progressive leaning blogs like Common Dreams and Alteret. Their all working in tandem with the current government to HIDE the truths about this unconstitutional bill from Americans. They're hell bent on reselecting this man for president.
Wake up, people. Citizens must throw every one of the 85+ senators and all the Reps that voted for this awful bill. They work for US, not the other way around.
2 January 2012 05:25PM
Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave.
The descent into facism started when Bush introduced the Patriot Act. The US is going up sh*t creek without a paddle!
2 January 2012 05:27PM
.
This is a new low even for Obama.
Land of the Free? - Only in the sense that they dont cost much, they are so easily bought or scared.
2 January 2012 05:28PM
Good article, but it will no doubt offend the apologists and bootlickers.
Almost more interesting than Obama's assaults on civil liberties are the attempts of so many to justify the way he snuggles up to every odious idea and policy put forward by people like Carl Levin and Dick Cheney. Reading major American outlets, you'd think that it just pains the hell out of Obama to strip away civil liberties or incarcerate and kill people without trial.
2 January 2012 05:31PM
Some comparisons between Nazi Germany and the US
the Reichstag Fire = 911
Hitler's Enabling Act = Patriot Act
Invade Poland = Invade Iraq
Blitzkrieg = Shock and Awe
Concentration Camps = Guantanamo
Joseph Goebbels = Karl Rove
Lord Hawhaw = Bill O'Reilly
The SS = Blackwater Inc
V2 rockets = Drones
Torture and deportation = Water boarding and rendition
2 January 2012 05:32PM
I don't think much of the implication that arbitrary imprisonment and execution would be OK as long as they didn't apply to US citizens.
2 January 2012 05:33PM
So standing up for equal gender rights is fascism? and as for an assault on religious freedoms why is being a Christian America now something to be ashamed of.
2 January 2012 05:33PM
This blog post, unfortunately, does not seem to be based on actually reading the text of the bill. The bill itself is the defense authorization bill, a huge piece of text concerning all things defense for the US for the coming year. It's about 800 pages, with 3 short sections devoted to detention.
If you want a dry, wonky, non-alarmist discussion, look, for example here: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/
The language about detention was, in fact, watered down, and indefinite detention is actually not codified in the text. What it does is basically allow the US administration to largely do what it's been doing so far, with some vague language allowing it to do so (and a few small improvements, in fact). In practice, nothing is going to change. I'd rather see something explicit prohibiting things like military tribunals and indefinite detention, but Congress is never going to pass that. Remember, Obama announced he wanted to close Gitmo, and the Senate reacte by voting 90-8, prohibiting the use of any funds transferring prisoners to mainlaind USA for trial.
So, this isn't an improvement, which is bad, but it doesn't make things worse either. In any case, it is not "historic" if you actually read the bill.
It would also be good for Mr. Hurley to actually quote sections of the bill if he's going to make such accusations, because there is a lot of misinformation out there. But he seems to rather want to link back to his own blog posts.
2 January 2012 05:34PM
They're not OK, but Americans REALLY don't care about those things.
2 January 2012 05:34PM
They are losing it totally over there.
Hugo should not have called Obama a "Clown and an Embarrassment" referring to whenever Obama opens his mouth."
He should have called the whole Senate of the U.S. government "Clowns and Embarrassments."
Fot the moment, we have to leave the ordinary people of the U.S. out of this; their opinions matter not one jot to their incompetent Mullahs, anyhow.
But look; whenever Obama looks afield and shines those white phosphorous teeth at the children of the world, who is that behind him, brushing down his tail flaps and polishing his shoes?
Yep, It's us, good ole Britain.
We have sold our souls to the patently un-intelligent, and have no plan B.
Our wretched plan to prey on Iran falls through.
The rest of the world has had enough of the two S's and little Enis.
Now about the government of Britain learning to be decent once more?
After all, they are OUR government, not hopeless shoe shine boys for that lost Yank mafioso.
2 January 2012 05:38PM
I forgot one thing. Sen. Levin actually did not say what people claim he said (and are breathlessly repeating). Here's a good post on that: http://www.politicususa.com/en/ndaa-breitbarted
2 January 2012 05:39PM
B0110x
2 January 2012 05:40PM
He did but his suspension went nowhere as far as this. For example, when it looked as though Maryland might secede, Lincoln had the fire eaters in the Maryland Senate locked up. But they were released later on in 1861 after the threat had been dealt with. The provisions in this measure go well beyond that. One might also add that Lincoln was dealing with an existential threat to the United States. No such threat exists today.
2 January 2012 05:44PM
Nice one. That is list is ridiculous Richard. To quote the late Mr Hitchens: "Can you for one second be morally serious?". By the way; how many of those happened under the Obama administration? Genuinely shocking.
2 January 2012 05:45PM
They must call this section "Comment is Free" because the information in it is not worth anything. Everything in this article has be debunked by numerous sources with this being the best one: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/. This so-called author even refers to a video of Carl Levin that was Breitbarted http://www.politicususa.com/en/ndaa-breitbarted (link has the whole UNEDITED video). I realize in an age of cutbacks a lot of good journalistic and editing staff was told to hit the pavement due to budget cutbacks but come on, Guardian - your standards should be higher than that. And for the reader-if something you read on the Internet says it's opinion, be sure and check the facts.
2 January 2012 05:45PM
"....So standing up for equal gender rights is fascism?...."
No. Not at all. Laws against sexual discrimination should be strictly enforced, but singling out a minority and banning religious garb is not only an assault on religious freedom, but racism directed at an immigrant population as well. By the way, fascism is an overused term. Its hardly something for Europeans to be proud of.
2 January 2012 05:47PM
Obama is as bought and paid for as the rest of the corrupt political establishment
2 January 2012 05:47PM
.
I agree that the parallels need enunciating. Maybe I can help get the ball rolling?
1) Both justified the use of torture by the state.
2) Both executed their citizens without trial
3) Both held their citizens without trial
4) In both the Head of State can order the indefinite imprisonment of citizens without trial
5) In both there is an attempt to cow the population by hyping non-existent 'existential threats'
6) Both put huge resources into the military and wage a succession of wars to increase their global influence
7) Both commit war crimes
8) Both reject international law
9) Both attempt run huge propaganda machines and attempt to control the press
10) Both are/were a danger to world peace
I could go on.
2 January 2012 05:48PM
Well, Jonathan Turley is a serious thinker but we are not on the Road to Facism here.
This cannot be viewed as only a question of Criminal Law with the full panoply of protections applying. These acts are not mere crimes. There ahs to be some leeway given and some trust reposed in the Executive.
manchestermajority- the bigger deal in the Civil war was the appointment of an Artmy provost Marshall in each Northern state. teh Confederacy hanged Unionists who resisited BTW, notably in East Tennessee and Northern Alabama.
2 January 2012 05:49PM
Its easy with the constant barrage of media brainwashing headlines to get sucked into The Fear and although things may get far worse before they get better, our challenge is to visualise a world of goodness instead of being coerced into visualising a world of hate.
I think we've grown up enough that we have realised that In Obama We Can't Trust or any politician for that matter. We have to be the paragons of virtue that we want them to be. If a critical mass of Humanity can do that, then that is when humanity shall rise from its slumber, but we may have some way to go.
"Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number,
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you
Ye are many — they are few"
2 January 2012 05:50PM
Spot on, sir. Accusations of fascism are misplaced and unintelligent. However the United States is becoming more authoritarian, as is also Europe and the UK. I expect this trend to accelerate as the economic crisis continues.
2 January 2012 05:52PM
"....Obama is as bought and paid for as the rest of the corrupt political establishment...."
Do you ever post anything else Dirk? Bought and paid for.....corporate America.....blah, blah, blah.....
2 January 2012 05:53PM
Mr. Obama is a dreadful President and his dirty deeds will be felt by the sleeping American people long after he has departed the scene.
I never supported him or those who ran against him. It's a shame that no one in his own political party has given him a well deserved challenge. I guess they all think he's doing an outstanding job.
2 January 2012 05:54PM
I post lots else, but it seems you just don't like hearing that particular message. You think it untrue, or saying it too many times sort of ruins the effect?
2 January 2012 05:55PM
USA eh! The most dangerous country in the world. Wouldn't trust them an inch.
2 January 2012 05:55PM
Sorry, have I missed something? Is the US currently in the midst of a civil war which threatens its very existence? No, it is not. But it has visited horrors comparable to those which it suffered during its own civil war on other countries after (at least in one case, an unprovoked) invasion.
If Lincoln could see what the US was doing today I have no doubt he'd be disgusted.
2 January 2012 05:58PM
Must. Support. The. Troops. At. All. Costs.
2 January 2012 06:01PM
Please don't. You've convinced me. The two things are basically the same. God bless Godwin's law.
2 January 2012 06:03PM
You may not agree with the comparisons but please don't tell me you support this?
2 January 2012 06:05PM
Harry
".....However the United States is becoming more authoritarian, as is also Europe and the UK. I expect this trend to accelerate as the economic crisis continues...."
After the attacks of 911, the US under Bush did become more authoritarian. It seems to be a fairly typical response to war (in this case , the "war on terror"). Remember how the US responded to its Japanese population during WWII? As for the economy, government response to descent into chaos from economic turmoil could be interpreted as authoritarian, I don't know. Tariffs (opposed to free trade)? You have some ideas on that?
Thanks for your response.
2 January 2012 06:06PM
Imagining the entire American political scene as homogeneously fascist suits those who can't be bothered looking past rubbish like that contained in this sexed-up article.
Nothing has actually changed.
There is little logic to what makes it into any bill that goes through Congress. Ridiculous amendments are tacked onto nearly all American legislation, only to be repealed at a later date in a succession of publicity stunts.
fvdlfvdl sums it up well here, and links to a sober assessment of the bill here.
A sober assessment.
2 January 2012 06:11PM
Moreover: Whack jobs like Ron Paul get such a big hearing because of the profound dishonesty, corruption and indifference to human rights revealed by establishment figures such as Obama and Bush.
2 January 2012 06:13PM
".....I post lots else, but it seems you just don't like hearing that particular message. You think it untrue, or saying it too many times sort of ruins the effect?...."
All politicians receive campaign contributions (free speech), and all must answer to their constituents. So you are really not providing any insight there, now are you. This article is about the "assault" on liberty, OK? By supporting indefinite detention, what special interest paid for Obama to take that position??
2 January 2012 06:16PM
What the passage of the NDAA law really tells us is the Congress is now very frightened of a revolt by the general population, who have become fed up with their corruption.
This draconian law is unconstitutional and as such should be challenged in the courts.
2 January 2012 06:18PM
As I've said before, some people just can't imagine any harm coming from governments fucking with those whom they don't care about in the first place.
Good for you: you don't care about the rights of others as long as your own miserable skin is protected.
2 January 2012 06:18PM
Does it mean;
Military can detain members of congress as well as Obama himself. If they are at present outside the law then how about when they leave office??
I believe the true intention of bill is to get hold of US citizens who may be muslim.
some day people will wake and realise that terrorists have won because they managed to bring changes to the life style of freedom loving people.
2 January 2012 06:19PM
How about some factual links instead of interpretations...
Is this the bill in question?
Bill Text
112th Congress (2011-2012)
H.R.1540.ENR
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:7:./temp/~c112QZKNfD::
if so, what section? If not, could someone please direct me to the text of the bill being discussed?
I agree Obama's performance so far has been pretty freakin dismal, our media is shit for providing information that matters. But facts (at least as much as a citizen can access) would be greatly appreciated.
2 January 2012 06:22PM
No particular one, but probably a whole load of them.
Who benefits when freedom is reigned in? Is it the rich and powerful, or those who don't like the system?
2 January 2012 06:25PM
Sorry, have I missed something? Is the US currently in the midst of a civil war which threatens its very existence? No, it is not.
Now then, now then. I wasn't justifying it in any way, all I was saying is that having the power is not without precedent in the USA, and as I noted they were different circumstances and different times.
2 January 2012 06:30PM
".....No particular one, but probably a whole load of them......"
How about the indefinite detention lobby? Since you can't think of any, your first post rings rather hollow on this particular article.
Thanks.
2 January 2012 06:33PM
I simply meant that crime and disorder usually increase with economic turbulence and poverty and these provoke authoritarian responses from governments. It is an old tradition. The economic slump that followed the end of the Napoleonic wars produced a raft of authoritarian measures and a clamp down on trades unions. The Thatcher government criminalised trespass in the 1980s when the economy was going down the toilet and excused the police from the inconvenience of having to get a search warrant. Lucky for you Americans that you have the Fourth Amendment.