Obama: A disaster for civil liberties

[Capt Bringdown]

He may prove the most disastrous president in our history in terms of civil liberties. (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-turley-civil-liberties-20110929,0,7542436.story)

President Obama not only retained the controversial Bush policies, he expanded on them. The earliest, and most startling, move came quickly. Soon after his election, various military and political figures reported that Obama reportedly promised Bush officials in private that no one would be investigated or prosecuted for torture. In his first year, Obama made good on that promise, announcing that no CIA employee would be prosecuted for torture. Later, his administration refused to prosecute any of the Bush officials responsible for ordering or justifying the program and embraced the "just following orders" defense for other officials, the very defense rejected by the United States at the Nuremberg trials after World War II.

Obama failed to close Guantanamo Bay as promised. He continued warrantless surveillance and military tribunals that denied defendants basic rights. He asserted the right to kill U.S. citizens he views as terrorists. His administration has fought to block dozens of public-interest lawsuits challenging privacy violations and presidential abuses.

In time, the election of Barack Obama may stand as one of the single most devastating events in our history for civil liberties. Now the president has begun campaigning for a second term. He will again be selling himself more than his policies, but he is likely to find many civil libertarians who simply are not buying.
- more - (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-turley-civil-liberties-20110929,0,7542436.story)

[Winehole23]

yep

[coyotes_geek]

Obama also gave us the phrase "post acquittal detention powers".

[TeyshaBlue]

Hope. Change.

[Winehole23]

hope in one hand, shit in the other

[Winehole23]

one filled up faster

[Yonivore]

hope in one hand, shit in the other
Didn't you vote for him?

[Winehole23]

nope

[Winehole23]

it was clear well before election day (as well as very soon aftewards) that Obama is an establishmentarian par excellence. the telecom immunization bill and TARP alone pretty much sealed that in 2008.

[Winehole23]

RP was my guy in 2008.

[Nbadan]

Funny that the guys who are saying that Obama is behind the drive to detain Americans on US soil are also the same guys who supported torture of American prisoners in foreign prisons...its baloney....Obama's statement is that he will veto the bill as it stands now..

[LnGrrrR]

Dan, give me a break. Obama has been authoritarian as Bush and you know it.

[Capt Bringdown]

Obama's statement is that he will veto the bill as it stands now..

That was Obama's position, now he has caved. Hence the criticism and condemnation from pretty much all corners, save for the most deluded Obamabots.

Today's Glenn Greenwald column (http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/) has a pretty good rundown of the situation as it stands:

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.
- more - (http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/)

[Nbadan]

That was Obama's position, now he has caved. Hence the criticism and condemnation from pretty much all corners, save for the most deluded Obamabots.

Today's Glenn Greenwald column (http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/) has a pretty good rundown of the situation as it stands:

Greenwald is goofy on this one....

The debate right now is in the language in the bill....does 'required', as in the military is not 'required' to act mean that it is legal to act...

[Winehole23]

Funny that the guys who are saying that Obama is behind the drive to detain Americans on US soil are also the same guys who supported torture of American prisoners in foreign prisons...its baloney....Obama's statement is that he will veto the bill as it stands now..Who please?

[z0sa]

Assassinating a US citizen shall be his most egregious offense.

[scott]

Bama is a terrier.

[scott]

But in all seriousness, most of his presidency has been about one-upping Dubya's ineptitude. Unfortunately, in a bizarro world repeat of 2004 - the Republicans have demonstrated themselves incapable of finding anyone who can beat one of the worst presidents in history.

[Winehole23]

- zing! -

[Jacob1983]

Obama has been completely hypocritical on his handling of the so-called war on terror. He's done numerous things that Bush did as president. Obama bitched about how illegal and dangerous those things were but he supports them now as president. He supports drones killing U.S. citizens, he supports the Patriot Act, he supports Gitmo, etc...
Isn't he a lawyer? Whatever happened to due process? Didn't Tim McVeigh get it?

[Winehole23]

back when we treated terrorists like the common criminals they are, yes

[ElNono]

Completely agree with the premise presented on this thread...

[MannyIsGod]

And what real alternative do we have? The GOP is going to nominate someone that will do the same things if not be worse with them. I certainly think McCain would have been worse (although perhaps not on the torture issue directly). Boutons is right. We're fucked and we're unfuckable.

[Winehole23]

Manny/boutons overdrive

[Winehole23]

blown tubes, fried speaker cone

[Winehole23]

jk,Manny. it's gittin late.

how you been?

[angrydude]

But in all seriousness, most of his presidency has been about one-upping Dubya's ineptitude. Unfortunately, in a bizarro world repeat of 2004 - the Republicans have demonstrated themselves incapable of finding anyone who can beat one of the worst presidents in history.

That's cause they're still all afraid of muslims slitting their throats at night and too proud to admit our neo-con foreign policy is an unmitigated disaster.

[Nbadan]

told ya so........this is rather embarrassing.




It turns out that the edited NDAA video of Carl Levin that was inaccurately cited in the mainstream media as proof that Obama wanted to detain US citizens was originally posted by a spammer. As we know, the President did not ask for language giving him the right to detain US citizens, he asked for the opposite. But that story wouldn’t get very many clicks for a spammer…..

Thanks to the hard work of several writers, we now know the truth behind the tin foil hat insanity trip of the edited Levin NDAA video that went viral. Congratulations, mainstream media – you got PWNED by a spammer.

Matt Osborne of Osborne Ink uncovered that spammers were behind the edited video:

On December 10th an unknown spammer posted a selectively-edited video of Senator Carl Levin at YouTube and proceeded to tweet the link 45 times over 24 hours. The link is now dead (video deleted by user), but it has already been copied to accounts on various video sites. To find out what Senator Levin actually said, you can go watch the full C-SPAN clip atPoliticusUSA.

The video set off an online freakout of epic proportions. Recipients of this ‘reply message spam’ included a Bradley Manning account, Occupy accounts, and assorted hacktivist accounts. It was like squirting lighter fluid onto a smoldering flame, feeding paranoid memes of right and left. Indeed, “Joe Fangorico” was nonpartisan, including FOX News’ own Joe Napolitano and Ron Paulites on his or her list

http://www.politicususa.com/en/edited-ndaa-video

another wing-nut talking point horribly debunked...I'm surprised by the number of board 'independents' who fell for this crap...

[cheguevara]

El Che pretty much agrees. Obama is just another puppet of Wall Street and the Military Industrial Complex.

[Winehole23]

told ya so........this is rather embarrassing.




http://www.politicususa.com/en/edited-ndaa-video

another wing-nut talking point horribly debunked...I'm surprised by the number of board 'independents' who fell for this crap...good find Dan, but rather a minor point. obama swore off the veto and plans to sign.

[JoeChalupa]

This won't hurt him much, IMHO.

[cheguevara]

This won't hurt him much, IMHO.

Fearmongering does that to a society. They become dumb and give up their liberties for a fake sense of protection.

[mavs>spurs]

But we gotta give up our civil liberties to the government in order to protect us from:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JDVhIiLBEyc/TldRS3baKvI/AAAAAAAABJc/f0Hp5ajPs5c/s1600/bedtime+story.jpg

[Nbadan]

good find Dan, but rather a minor point. obama signed the piece of crap after promising to veto.

After being assured that the President would be the only one authorized to detain American citizens on US soil...Obama wants to know if an American citizen is being held on terror charges....that is accountability....unlike Dubya who broke any Constitutional protected freedom he saw fit to break and to hell with accountability....Dubya was already doing this and saying fuck the law..

How in the world those two are moral equivalents to you is beside me....

[RandomGuy]

But in all seriousness, most of his presidency has been about one-upping Dubya's ineptitude. Unfortunately, in a bizarro world repeat of 2004 - the Republicans have demonstrated themselves incapable of finding anyone who can beat one of the worst presidents in history.

+1

I would give Dubya some cred for vaguely pulling his head out of his ass in his second term.

To bad we were already sucked into Iraq by then.

[spursncowboys]

Funny that the guys who are saying that Obama is behind the drive to detain Americans on US soil are also the same guys who supported torture of American prisoners in foreign prisons...its baloney....Obama's statement is that he will veto the bill as it stands now..

Who here supports americans being tortured in foreign prisons?

[Winehole23]

After being assured that the President would be the only one authorized to detain American citizens on US soil...Obama wants to know if an American citizen is being held on terror charges....that is accountability....unlike Dubya who broke any Constitutional protected freedom he saw fit to break and to hell with accountability....Dubya was already doing this and saying fuck the law..Can you not see the moral hypocrisy of claiming indefinite detention and kill lists for US citizens are sanctified by legal permission? To say nothing whatsoever of the constitutional perversion of such a hypothesis.

And can you not see the imbecility of putting the political chieftain in charge of what the world considers war crimes and crimes against humanity, like we taught em?
How in the world those two are moral equivalents to you is beside me....You're not paying attention. The US government has successfully claimed UK style state secrets privileges. That's on Obama; Bush wasn't so bold. Nor was he bold enough to suspend due process for US citizens by placing them on kill lists.

Now Congress has strengthened the hand of the President by giving him express authorization for what should not happen; for what never should happen; for what should never have happened.

Indefinite detention, secret prisons, prior restraint on the internet, abrogation of due process, state secrets, immunity for telecom surveillance of Americans, legally sanctified extrajudicial procedures.

Bush was a sine qua non, Bush was truly and literally radical, but this goes way beyond Bush by now.

[Wild Cobra]

Looks like we do have something he will go down in history for!

[z0sa]

Fearmongering does that to a society. They become dumb and give up their liberties for a fake sense of protection.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

-Benjamin Franklin

[Winehole23]

what's hard for me to understand is the lack of institutional ganas on the part of Congress. why does it continue to strengthen the hand of the executive?

[Winehole23]

confession of essential spinelessness and ineptitude?

[Winehole23]

Congress needs a daddy figure?

[Winehole23]

wtf?

[Winehole23]

Looks like we do have something he will go down in history for!just wait 'til his second term

[Nbadan]

Can you not see the moral hypocrisy of claiming indefinite detention and kill lists for US citizens are sanctified by legal permission? To say nothing whatsoever of the constitutional perversion of such a hypothesis.

And can you not see the imbecility of putting the political chieftain in charge of what the world considers war crimes and crimes against humanity, like we taught em?
n

Take a deep breath winehole. Obama has not ordered the killing of any American citizen, nor has he ordered the indefinite detention of an American citizen, nor did he ask for the authority to detain or kill American citizens. All this is congress...Congress led by the GOP house is behind handing all its
oversight responsibility to the Executive branch...we are lucky to have a grown up like Obama in charge rather than McCain, Dubya or Gingrich who would jail anyone who dares question the authority of the corpocrasy....

[Nbadan]

I'm not completely sure why Obama decided to sign the bill in its current state, but I do know that there is no other President I would want to be responsible with this authority than Obama...maybe he is looking for someone to challenge the constitutionality of this part of the bill while he is President. Think about how long a wing-nut President would abuse such authority until it's constitutionality is decided...

[Winehole23]

Obama has not ordered the killing of any American citizenhttp://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=185116&highlight=awlaki

[Winehole23]

it's amazing how much wrong you compressed into the first sentence of #45, Dan. I believe all three premisses are wrong.

[Winehole23]

will check in due time

[Nbadan]

Nit-pic all you want....defend Al-Awaki all you want.....Obama will issue a rare signing statement detailing how he does not agree with the authority nor will he use the power granted to him under this law


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#45759926

[Winehole23]

but I do know that there is no other President I would want to be responsible with this authority than Obama..too bad, they all have it now

[Nbadan]

Guy wanted war with the US and got it...so be it...


U.S. officials allege that Al-Awlaki spoke with and preached to a number of al-Qaeda members and affiliates, including three of the 9/11 hijackers,[17] alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan,[18][19] and alleged "Christmas Day bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab;[20][21][22] he was also allegedly involved in planning the latter's attack. The Yemeni government began trying him in absentia in November 2010, for plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda, and a Yemenite judge ordered that he be captured "dead or alive".[23][24]

According to U.S. officials, al-Awlaki was promoted to the rank of "regional commander" within al-Qaeda in 2009.[25][26] He repeatedly called for jihad against the United States.[27][28] In April 2010, American President Obama approved Al-Awlaki's targeted killing,[29][30][31] an action unprecedented for an American citizen and an action unsuccessfully challenged by al-Awlaki's father and civil rights groups.[32][29][30][31]

Al-Awlaki was believed to be in hiding in Southeast Yemen in the last years of his life.[23] The U.S. deployed unmanned aircraft in Yemen to search for and kill him,[33] firing at and failing to kill him at least once,[34] before he was killed in a drone attack in Yemen on September 30, 2011.[35] Two weeks later Al-Awlaki's 16 year old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who was born in Denver, was also killed by an American drone strike in Yemen.[36][37][38] Nasser al-Awlaki, the father of Anwar and grandfather of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, recorded an audio to condemn the killings of his son and grandson.[39]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

[Nbadan]

too bad, they all have it now

Unless its constitutionality can challenged before the Obama administration ends...

[Winehole23]

btw I essentially agree with you that Congress is strengthening the hand of the executive.

You like it cause your guy gets the goodies. You won't like it so much when a GOP clown car occupant whips Obama next year.

[Winehole23]

Unless its constitutionality can challenged before the Obama administration ends...Do you pray, Dan?

[Nbadan]

btw I essentially agree with you that Congress is strengthening then hand of the executive.

You like it cause your guy gets the goodies. You won't like it so much when a GOP clown car occupant whips Obama next year.

Should give people pause to really think about who they are voting for next year though....

[Nbadan]

Do you pray, Dan?

They say at the end we are all prayers...

[Winehole23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlakiyou said Obama didn't order anyone killed. you were wrong. it's hardly nitpicking to say you were wrong from the get go, just a first impression. details to follow...

[Winehole23]

They say at the end we are all prayers...no atheists in foxholes and all that rot

[Winehole23]

your prayer has a better chance than judicial review, JMO

[Nbadan]

you said Obama didn't order anyone killed. you were wrong.

Al Awalaki was a terrorist.

[Winehole23]

our government said he was one

[Winehole23]

but he was still a US citizen

[Winehole23]

you can't paper that over with the terrorist label. fucker gets a fair trial before we hang him.

[Winehole23]

a secretly determined and overseen death list of US citizens is a bad, bad idea.

[Nbadan]

...and hopefully this can be decided by the courts, but I have a feeling that you shouldn't hold your breath for the Robert's court to side against the government on this one..

[Nbadan]

...but we are straying away from the main point of this thread...which was that Obama is a disaster to civil liberties...I contend it is the Roberts court and the GOP house which are disasters to civil liberties...

[Winehole23]

Awlaki is your mortal enemy now, but 40 minutes ago you had no idea who he was. I admire your decisiveness.

[Nbadan]

Awlaki is your mortal enemy now, but 40 minutes ago you had no idea who he was. I admire your decisiveness.

I'd heard of some of his history, but was unaware of the particulars of his life, from everything I read he was a bad guy, his trial, military or criminal, would have been procedural, he was an active enemy combatant...what else is there to know?

[Winehole23]

...but we are straying away from the main point of this thread...which was that Obama is a disaster to civil liberties...I contend it is the Roberts court and the GOP house which are disasters to civil liberties...it's all their fault!

:sleep







(just keep hitting the snooze bar. everything's fine.)

[4>0rings]

The Patriot Act was the worst thing to civil liberties in this history of this country, wasn't Obama's policies.

[Winehole23]

he was an active enemy combatantsrsly?

what yer source on that?

[Winehole23]

what did he do?

[Winehole23]

The Patriot Act was the worst thing to civil liberties in this history of this country, wasn't Obama's policies.history is long. it didn't begin when Bush became president in 2000, it won't end when some GOP clownbot knocks over Obama in 2012.

[Winehole23]

nighty nite

[Nbadan]

it's all their fault!

:sleep


(just keep hitting the snooze bar. everything's fine.)

they had the votes to override a veto, this would have been law with or without Obama...

[Nbadan]

The Patriot Act was the worst thing to civil liberties in this history of this country, wasn't Obama's policies.

There was no political will not to reauthorize major points in the Patriot act

[Nbadan]

history is long. it didn't begin when Bush became president in 2000, it won't end when some GOP clownbot knocks over Obama in 2012.

History is long, but you seem to not offer Obama any benefit of doubt,,,look at his history and ask yourself if his legal counsel is justifying torture or actively advocating indefinite detention or rendition of enemy combatants

[Winehole23]

what is gitmo, Dan?

[Winehole23]

There was no political will not to reauthorize major points in the Patriot acttherefore it deserved to win, we to lose. still sucks for us tho.

[Winehole23]

you ducked the direct question about Awlaki. will you dodge gitmo too? :lol:toast

[Nbadan]

you ducked the direct question about Awlaki. will you dodge gitmo too? :lol:toast

The evidence is out there...just look


"Two cases illustrate al-Awlaki's ability to attract followers online. The best known is the messages exchanged between him and U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, who is being tried for the murder of 13 people at Fort Hood in Texas. In subsequent interviews, al-Awlaki said Hasan had initiated e-mail correspondence with him in December 2008. Al Jazeera reported: "He was asking about killing U.S. soldiers and officers," says al-Awlaki. "His question was, is it legitimate" under Islamic law.

More than a dozen e-mails followed, with Hasan asking al-Awlaki about martyrdom, about when jihad is permissible (about which al-Awlaki had written volumes), the death of innocent bystanders in attacks. And after the shootings, al-Awlaki was quick to praise them. In the Al Jazeera interview, he calls the shooting "a heroic action."

"The operation had a military target inside America, and there's no dispute about that," says al-Awlaki, adding that the soldiers killed "were prepared and equipped to fight and kill oppressed Muslims." He also mocked U.S. intelligence for not picking up on the e-mail traffic. "

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/30/anwar-al-awlaki-al-qaedas-rock-star-no-more/?hpt=hp_bn4

[Nbadan]

The guy was plotting to kill Americans. If he had remained in the U.S. he would have been apprehended, charged, and tried. He's a traitor who chose to flee the country and take refuge in a country that is hostile and lawless. Therefore, he forfeits his rights as a U.S. citizen. We should not be risking American lives in a place like Yemen to take him alive

Anwar al-Awlaki's New Radical Message
Radical Yemeni cleric calls for killing Americans in a video posted on online.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/video/anwar-al-awlakis-radical-message-12087685

[Wild Cobra]

Take a deep breath winehole. Obama has not ordered the killing of any American citizen, nor has he ordered the indefinite detention of an American citizen, nor did he ask for the authority to detain or kill American citizens.
How do you know?

Who would there be to say?

[Winehole23]

The guy was plotting to kill Americans. If he had remained in the U.S. he would have been apprehended, charged, and tried. He's a traitor who chose to flee the country and take refuge in a country that is hostile and lawless. Therefore, he forfeits his rights as a U.S. citizen. what bullshit. expressing extreme or odious views does not extinguish birthrights, it is one.


(nor does traveling to an exotic, dangerous place. that's just silly, Dan.)

[Winehole23]

you did did dodge gitmo

[Winehole23]

btw, attracting online followers and preaching to radicals aren't combatant activities in the usual sense of the word.

[z0sa]

The guy was plotting to kill Americans. If he had remained in the U.S. he would have been apprehended, charged, and tried. He's a traitor who chose to flee the country and take refuge in a country that is hostile and lawless. Therefore, he forfeits his rights as a U.S. citizen.

Wow. Pathetic on your behalf. There's criminals (read: murderers) hiding in other countries - do they deserve death just because they plotted to kill? Or do they deserve a trial and a jury and judge just like every other American?

You obviously don't have the foresight to envision what happens when such a precedent is set.


We should not be risking American lives in a place like Yemen to take him alive

Says who, you? Who gets to decide when and where and why American civilians cease being innocent til proven guilty in a court of law?

[Winehole23]

where and why Americans cease having rights?when terrorists attacked us on 9/11

[Winehole23]

they won

[Winehole23]

we forfeit our rights, or more accurately, they were forfeited for us

[z0sa]

i edited ;P

and I hate to believe that even if it sounds true

[Winehole23]

the conceit of a fair show for the bad guys went out the window when we threw our own rights away for security theatre

[scott]

We should not be risking American lives in a place like Yemen to take him alive

Why stop at Yemen, Dan? Why not Detroit or Compton?

[Winehole23]

(coffee)

[z0sa]

How much longer til the American version of Night of the Long Knives and the real life version of Hate Week...

[Winehole23]

we've opened the door

[Winehole23]

I tend to think it will take 100+ years for all the decadent crapola to unwind, but I don't know why. it's usually a mistake to think things will happen soon.

it won't be a pretty process. very bad things can and will happen along the way.

[Winehole23]

interesting times

[Winehole23]

they had the votes to override a veto, this would have been law with or without Obama...Obama will sign it

[boutons_deux]

Come on, guys, don't be soon bouton-ish "doom & gloom". :lol

Think happy thoughts.

Have a positive attitude.

God won't let bad things happen to His favorite country.

[Nbadan]

what bullshit. expressing extreme or odious views does not extinguish birthrights, it is one.


(nor does traveling to an exotic, dangerous place. that's just silly, Dan.)

Isn't that what most conspiracies are? Perhaps the small difference being that Al Awalaki didn't have a undercover informant buying him the supplies and providing him with strategic information...still, Al Awalaki went well beyond that...had he been tried he would have been convicted...

[Nbadan]

Why stop at Yemen, Dan? Why not Detroit or Compton?

Is that a serious question Scott? As soon as drones start killing suspected terrorists in the US we'll talk..

[Nbadan]

How much longer til the American version of Night of the Long Knives and the real life version of Hate Week...

The Nazi shouldn't have killed their opponents, that was short-sighted...they should have had the SS throw them in jail and then tried them in a court of opinion by calling them immigrants, hippies (opppps gipsies) and socialists (opppps....Communists)

[scott]

Is that a serious question Scott? As soon as drones start killing suspected terrorists in the US we'll talk..

Yes it's a serious question. If we aren't willing to put our men in harm's way to kill a US citizen in Yemen, why would we put them in harm's way anywhere else?

[Nbadan]

Yes it's a serious question. If we aren't willing to put our men in harm's way to kill a US citizen in Yemen, why would we put them in harm's way anywhere else?

We have a President who does what he very rarely does, issues a signing statement, saying he will ignore a law which compels him to do something he never asked to do...and 90% of the assholes who voted for it will go through the 2012 election unscathed....but it's all Obama...

[Nbadan]

we've opened the door

That Occam's razor was crossed long before DAT or have you forgotten Jose Padilla? Without consequence, we have let the MIC rendition, indefinitely detain, torture and murder innocent civilians in other countries...now were concerned because they've shifted their focus inward? Too fucken late...

[Nbadan]

How do you know?

Who would there be to say?

For US Citizens, permanent residents, and non-citizen non-resident people captured within the United States, the law specifically (1021e) says that it does not affect the state of the law. So courts will continue to look to the state of the law prior to the NDAA to determine questions about US Citizens.

For non-US-Citizens, the statutory language is broader. This reflects nothing more than a codification of the "covered by" creep that the courts have already affirmed over and over again. It does not go beyond what the courts have already held. In other words, anyone who could be detained (and approved by a court) before the NDAA can be detained afterwards, and anyone who could not be detained before cannot be detained afterwards.

The original AUMF basically applied to people who committed 9/11, belonged to organizations that committed 9/11, or belonged to organizations that aided those who committed 9/11. The new law (section 1021) replaces all that with "al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces." Since the new resolution makes the old resolution more specific (rather than less), it is hard to see where creep could come from. Both al-Queda and the Taliban clearly were covered under the old AUMF, so the only part in question is is "associated forces." But that doesn't seem any vaguer than the previous resolution, which didn't even specify the major forces at all. A force "associated" with al-Qaeda or the Taliban easily fit under the previous court's interpretation of the AUMF.

In fact, the language actually narrows the DC Circuit's interpretation. The DC Circuit used the term "knowingly supported" in its interpretation (with no requirement of that support being substantial); this legislation now requires that this support be substantial. Since this is a refinement, there is no way that a court could rule out the "substantial" requirement out of the statute.

The original AUMF could have been sunset. But the original AUMF still applies even if the actual people responsible for 9/11 are gone, since it also applies to anyone in any organization who was responsible for 9/11 (or aided those responsible). So it doesn't appear that the AUMF has the graceful sunset.

The one way that this bill could have expanded authority is if the entire current DC Circuit (and Supreme Court) retires, and is replaced by judges/justices who dramatically scale down their original interpretation of the AUMF. That just doesn't seem to be a realistic prospect though. Ultimately, while the statutory language has indeed been broadened, it seems that this will have little to no practical effect, in that anyone eligible for detention now was almost certainly eligible for detention before.

[Winehole23]

...still, Al Awalaki went well beyond that...had he been tried he would have been convicted...well then, why didn't we try to when we had the chance?

[Winehole23]

Without consequence, we have let the MIC rendition, indefinitely detain, torture and murder innocent civilians in other countries...now were concerned because they've shifted their focus inward? Too fucken late...yeah, I'm concerned. why aren't you?

[boutons_deux]

The PATRIOT Act’s material support provisions allow our government to criminalize speech and repress political dissent, a frontal assault on the First Amendment. And with material support cases grounded in associational guilt, the First Amendment is also eroding from its figurative sides.

The NDAA would expand those assaults by eliminating the need to prosecute. In the hands of a president, attorney general, US attorney, or even, potentially, state or local prosecutors willing to use their powers for political purposes, it offers the legal authority for severe repression.

covered persons” subject to potential military detention “any person who has committed a belligerent act….” What, exactly, is a belligerent act? “Hostile” and “aggressive” are synonyms, and while the term has an established (though not entirely defined) meaning in the context of international war, its precise meaning in the context of the NDAA remains unspecified.

Two weeks ago, several Occupy sites on the west coast shut down a series of ports in coordinated acts of non-violent direct action. Were a foreign country to blockade our ports, it would certainly constitute a “belligerent act” under the laws of war.

But what if it’s US citizens who conduct the blockade? What’s the answer then? That’s the point: no one knows. Any assurances that future officials will not apply these dangerously overbroad terms to US citizens is grounded in conjecture. Wishful thinking is a poor substitute for the thoughtful deliberation Congress should undertake when toying with powers of such potentially sweeping scope.

Ironically, groups most likely at risk for military detention represent diverse interests: the Occupy movement has been addressed as a terror threat by London police and various critics in the United States, and Tea Party groups have raised concerns about counterterrorism scrutiny of militia movements [and Ron Paul supporters].

http://my.firedoglake.com/shahidbuttar/2011/12/23/the-ndaa-another-assault-in-the-dead-of-night/


http://my.firedoglake.com/shahidbuttar/2011/12/23/the-ndaa-another-assault-in-the-dead-of-night/

[Winehole23]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/an-egregious-violation-of-due-process/2011/12/21/gIQAnVgHJP_story.html

[Winehole23]

http://www.milforddailynews.com/opinions/editorials/x545134513/Editorial-Rights-lost-on-a-new-battlefield

[Winehole23]

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december252011/ndaa-recall.php

[Winehole23]

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/199931-congressional-cowardice-not-military-detentions-is-the-real-threat-to-civil-liberty

[RandomGuy]

Come on, guys, don't be soon bouton-ish "doom & gloom". :lol

Think happy thoughts.

Have a positive attitude.

God won't let bad things happen to His favorite country.

YwTGGHaCHAE

[Winehole23]

Assassinating a US citizen shall be his most egregious offense.only one of a potpourri of offenses against liberty, I'm afraid

[Winehole23]

it remains to be seen whether it is the most egregious. Obama might be re-elected.

[Winehole23]

signed by Obama:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188936

[Winehole23]

more continuity, Congress asleep at the tiller:


A Senate staffer was tasked two years ago with compiling reports for a subcommittee about the number of times annually the Justice Department employed a covert internet and telephone surveillance method known as pen register and trap-and-trace capturing.


But the records, which the Justice Department is required to forward to Congress annually, were nowhere in sight.


That’s because the Justice Department was not following the law and had not provided Congress with the material at least for years 2004 to 2008. On the flip side, Congress was not exercising its watchdog role, thus enabling the Justice Department to skirt any oversight whatsoever on an increasingly used surveillance method that does not require court warrants, according to Justice Department documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act.


The mishap is just one piece of an ever-growing disconnect between Americans’ privacy interests, and a Congress seemingly uncommitted to protecting those interests.


Pen registers obtain non-content information of outbound telephone and internet communications, such as phone numbers dialed, and the sender and recipient (and sometimes subject line) of an e-mail message. A trap-and-trace acquires the same information, but for inbound communications to a target.


The reports, recently posted on Justice Department website, chronicle a powerful surveillance tool undertaken tens of thousands of times annually by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Marshals Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.


The reports show that, from 2004 to 2008, the number of times this wiretapping method was employed nearly doubled, from 10,885 to 21,152. Judges sign off on these telco orders when the authorities say the information is relevant to an investigation. No probable cause that the target committed a crime — the warrant standard — is necessary.


The Justice Department, beginning in late 2010, has only published the reports from 2004 to 2009 (http://www.justice.gov/criminal/foia/elect-read-room.html), the year it obtained 23,895 judicial orders to conduct such surveillance. It did not immediately comment on whether the 2010 and 2011 reports have been compiled and sent to Congress, or explain why the mishap occurred.


Internet security researcher Christopher Soghoian recently obtained e-mails via a two-year FOIA process confirm for the first time that Congress was left out of the loop for at least the years 2004 to 2008. Using FOIA, he and others have crowbarred from the Justice Department the reports from 1999 to 2009 (http://www.spyingstats.com/).


“This is an important surveillance tool,” Soghoian said in a telephone interview. “In addition to showing that DOJ is lazy and not obeying the law, the most notable thing here is that Congress was asleep at the wheel.”
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/02/congress-in-the-dark/