We got punched in the nose 10 years, 3 months, and 24 days ago. We got up, dusted ourselves off, buckled on our armor and went righteously to war against those who had conducted or facilitated that beating, throwing in an untrustworthy rogue regime with a history of manufacturing and using weapons of mass destruction into the bargain.
There were some, chiefly among the civil libertarian left who argued that the modes and methods used to prosecute that war from the home front were threatening to our civil liberties as enshrined in our foundational documents. That the Patriot Act, for example, was a slippery slope to constitutional dismemberment.
Stuff, said I at the time. Hard times call for hard measures, and any loss of liberty – I strained to find even one – would be temporary in nature at best.
Then along came Hamdi vs Rumsfeld, the case involving a Louisiana-born Saudi national being detained as an enemy combatant. It was a tweener, for me: The guy had the great good fortune to be born in the world’s freest country, and attempted to use his birthright to shield himself from the consequences of warring on that country’s freedoms. It didn’t help much that the case was being made by the hysterical Glenn Greenwald(s), and that his effort were being used for chiefly partisan purposes by those on political left in this country. Much was made about “the Great Writ” by those who probably had never heard of it before Bush Stole Florida.
My suspicion of the latter was if anything increased rather than otherwise by the strange silence that settled over them once one of their own had been elected to executive power. From a foreign policy perspective, the only thing that really changed between President Bush’s last days in office and his successor’s stewardship has been the willingness of the latter to escalate drone attacks, including one that killed a US citizen.
To his credit, Greenwald has kept banging his spoon on the high chair, even as his allies on the left remained silent. As has GW law professor Jonathan Turley, writing in the UK Guardian, of all places:
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.
President Obama said that he was signing the NDAA “with reservations”, and that he intended to limit the incursions on American civil rights to the maximum extent possible. We’d just have to trust him. And yet, the executive privilege of confining US citizens indefinitely based on the whimsies of an unbound president were duly requested and subsequently implemented by our legislative representatives. A collusion, in other words, between two of our three federal branches of government to eliminate our constitutional prerogatives. For the troops.
It would be truly ironic if, having gone abroad to bring unwanted freedom to unworthy masses, the end result will have been tyranny of a different sort, both here and there.
” We have met the enemy and He is us…” – Pogo
Turley’s blog is a good follow.
Good thought provoking stuff.
http://abovethelaw.com/
Truly ironic, indeed..Capt.
At the risk of tweaking flit..can we say..when the dems are in power..we have increased taxes..and decreased freedoms? Or at least trend that way?
Too much in the Barbancourt bag to hunt down all the bookmarks/links, but we already know, thanks to Janet Icecream and her published studies at Homeland security, which groups of people are the most–indeed PRIME, a priori–suspect as being threats to nat security–the Homeland Security “analysis” being little more than a regurgitation of Obama’s personal views on the subject (“bitter clingers”i.e., whites, religious “nuts”, gun-owners and returning veterans.) Any doubts? It’s all there in B& W on the very printed pages of Homeland Security’s “intel” report (of course now disavowed) signed by Janet Baby herself. And of course when the female US Rep. from Ariz was shot the VERY FIRST thing the left and the MSM did was try to pin it all on the “hostile atmosphere” created by Sara Palin the Tea Party and the right in general–all despite that it was SOON vividly apparent from existing evidence in the public domain that if the shooter was anything he was a pot-smoking lefty. Hell, her husband, in a recent interview
on the anniversary of the shooting still believes the Tea Party had something to do with his wife’s shooting–and he’s a college-educated ex astronaut. How easy does anyone think it will be for Obama, aided and abetted by a VERY willing MSM, to whip up public support for suppression of his political enemies on the right?
VX,
A well-proven path. Whip up public sentiment against a segment of the population (counter-revolutionaries, Jews, Copts), produce “official” documentation that “proves” what a danger they are, and then, when the police arrest and detain without due process, there isn’t so much as a whimper. They had it coming. And besides, if I object, I am likely next.
Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, Kim Il Sung, Idi Amin, Mugabe. They were also willing to act without restraint from other political entities as long as it was in the “best interests of the country”. As they defined it, of course.
And now we have the man who lectured us on the inhumanity of locking up illegal combatants trying to kill Americans in Iraq and AFG, looking to do just that to American citizens.
Coming is the loyalty choice of our senior “leaders” in uniform. The choice between support and defense of the Constitution, as their oath mandates, or pandering for political favor and turning our Title 10 forces into a national Geheime Staatzpolizei.
This Obama is a ‘clinger’ on the a**hairs of America, VX.
Recently, I was taken from my house in handcuffs with no charges placed upon me. The police officers were very nice. They said they would handcuff me in the front, which they did, and not turn the shackels too tight…
This is what we have come to.
What reason did they give for taking you into custody?
I had said something while under emotional duress to a secretary at a mental health clinic. I ended up spending 48 hours in a psycho lock up until
they realized I had said this to someone that answers the phones, not a mental health counselor…
I was taken out of my home with wet hair and partially dressed… But, that’s OK, the nice police officer didn’t clamp down on the shackles too much.
OK, thank you. I am glad you are back with us.
When I go out of the lock up I requested a police report. I received a letter back that due to the back up they couldn’t supply this police report for 246 days. It has now been over a year and I still haven’t gotten a police report! I have photos of the bruises on my arms from being taken into custody.
I contacted an attorney and he wouldn’t touch it with a ten foot pole!
What state did this happen in?
Be careful around people who work in the mental health field, those people are crazy.
That’s sadly true.
Some people go into to understand what’s wrong with them, others do it because it looks easy and seems “caring”. The standards of psychologists are low, the standards for various “counselors” are non-existent.
Yes, with the US Military performing such duties within our own borders…
Are Republic is lost. We were too busy watching TV and enjoying our beer to pay attention as our rights slowly eroded away. We’re still armed but they’ll beggar us too control us.
I know I sound like a negative nancy, but I cannot help but see bloodshed in our future. The only way that this can be resolved is in civil war I’m afraid.
It isn’t truly ironic, Mister Host o’ the Blog.
It is an ironclad guarantee.
The reason to kill Awliki was not to set precedent in the War on Terror. It was to set precedent that the President could order the death of any American he chose, without any semblance of due process.
He is an enemy of this country and of the Constitution we have sworn to support and defend.
I am skeptical that there is any partially conceived plan by Obama or leading Democrats to forcefully impose a totalitarian state.
Killing terrorists in foreign countries is militarily necessary to achieve operational goals. Even if the enemy is composed of US citizens, their citizenship does not protect them if they take up arms against their country. In WWII, a German sabotage team landed in New York. One member was a US citizen and was executed with the rest on the basis of a Supreme Court judgement that taking-up arms against the country nullified any protections that citizenship provides. In other words, fighting against your country is to give up one’s citizenship.
Sadly, that isn’t a point people feel comfortable making.
I do not know about the specifics of the legislation but if it pertains solely to people who take up arms against the US, I see no problem with it.
I have a massive problem that allows precedent to be set in which we have to rely on the benevolence of the office holders for our civil liberties, and not the Constitution.
No totalitarian state? Ask Bill Ayers. Or read Frank Marshall Davis. You’ll be skeptical until the lockups start.
If this is what I suspect it is,the precedent has been set much earlier.
As bad as Obama and Ayers are (I suspect them of secretly being Marxists), we cannot allow that to degrade our own rationality.
The central issue of what to do with US citizens that fight against their own country. The traditional answer has been to view that as giving up their citizenship and that they will be treated as if they were no long citizens.
I am not particularly worried about this case. I am far more concerned with the notion that Al-Qaida and Al-Shabab can use US citizens as human shields to conduct their terrorist operations. The civil rights aspect is negated by the fact Hamdi joined an organization at war with the US.
You mean to tell me that The Won was not only President of the Harvard Law Review, but that he also has a Bachelor’s Degree in “BS” and an MFA in Orwellian “NewSpeak”?
You say that The Won can and does regularly simultaneously speak out of both sides of his mouth and various other bodily orifices–all whilst being “No Drama Obama”? Who knew? As the late Howard Cosell said, “I’ve got to know!”
Color me shocked–absolutely shocked!!!!!! I’ll either have a good dose of smelling salts, or two double Jack Daniels. One of those will set me up just right whilst I deal with this disturbing news.
I am firmly convinced now that this has been signed that a building will blow up, or worse, and a “crisis” will require disarming the citizenry.
When it gets to that point we will go to the mattresses and have our ‘American Spring’.
A fire, perhaps, in Congress?
For which the blame will go to a “violent extremist” Veteran who attends church, believes in smaller government, and in the Second Amendment. Just as Janet Reno and Janet Napolitano have warned us about.
Yep, since “Fast and Furious” got exposed. This is maybe not even plan “B,” but one of many in the works for just such purposes…
IF this were a novel or a film, right about now there would be a montage of plucky former service members, bound by the love of
countrygood beer, training at ranges, orienteering courses, and in the DC Metro tunnels. They would communicate via internet in arcane codes and jargon. At the signal of a burning Constitution, they would down tools and seamlessly right the wrongs done to America. The media would be mystified, the populous free, and the beer — good.” he would limit the incursions on American civil rights to the maximum extent possible ” There is more than one way that phrase can be read.
URR, I suspect that the Administration is already looking for a veteran named Van der Lubbe to blame the fire on.
Dwas – Well you did it! You tweaked flit!
(Unfortunately, I am easily tweaked.)
Who raises taxes? Democrats? I loved this interview with Cantor the other day:
“…Reagan actually raised taxes 12 times in his presidency, including during the 1982 recession. Leslie Stahl of CBS’ 60 Minutes program took that fact into an interview with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and got a frosty reception….”
Related LINK
Furthermore there is always a difficult balancing act between freedom and protection, and I have always respected constitutional law professor Turley’s opinions.
Amazing how you seem to have this uncanny ability to ignore the elephant in the room, and quickly obfuscate….I will offer to be a good reference for your next employer checks.
The discussion is about the power of the Federal Government to detain, in contravention to what we have held dear in The Constitution and you bring out taxation, and who’s fault it is…wow…right (NOT!) on target!
xformed – Let the record reflect that it was not I who raised the unrelated issue of taxation within this thread.
In fact it was dwas. For my part, I only humbly responded to his “tweaking.”
Flit, did he raise income taxes? Or did he raise some other taxes not affecting the general public?
Regardings abombdination of a law: There is a very good reason why the Founding fathers put the Second Ammendment in the Constitution. This might be it.
BTW, several black people I work with heard of this not to long ago and were outraged. I offered to check on it, and having done a fast look at the news sites, assured them this wasn’t true. Tomorrow I’ll have to break the bad news to them, that King Barak has proclaimed absolute sovereignty over his subjects.
Somehow, I think this is going to be a bad time for police and National Guardsmen.
Our President cannot be trusted. He has a well proven track record of saying one thing and then doing exactly the opposite.
Therefore these new powers really scare me.
Although, he has been succeeding quite nicely at deatroyingour country with merely the “old” powers he had, and the new powers he has usurped.
God help us, PLEASE!
It’s one little enumerated right. It’s in Latin anyway. What’s the harm? We must do it for the children because all that freedom and liberty we were born into makes you crazy. No rights, no choices, no stress for the little dears.
We do a lot for the children but the one thing we won’t do for them is preserve the rights and freedoms afforded us by our ancestors.
120 years ago, they waxed quite eloquently on the freedoms:
Today, they can’t even take them with flare, just a nadir of the news cycle signature.
and yesterday, there on our national TV, was Jesse Jackson in London, spouting off about how we need more black senior police officers – as if we didn’t know that after years and years of trying. OK Jesse, we must try harder, thanks for the heads up, now what exactly IS your specialist subject……..
OOps, Jesse gets a `moderation`
A signing statement? What a joke. Whether Obama truly intends to use these powers or not is beside the point. Regardless of what he does, the Presidency now has those powers. Eventually there will be a President who has no qualms about using them. Congress has trusted not only this President to behave well, but also all subsequent Presidents.
Rule of thumb: every time Congress invents some new government power, remember that some day it will be used by a politician you like even less than the ones there now.
If the fact that this law doesn’t worry you, you better think again. This NDAA law is very scary.