The NDAA's Historic Assault on American Liberty 

By signing into law the NDAA, the president has awarded
the military extraordinary powers to detain US citizens
without trial 

by Jonathan Turley

Published on Monday, January 2, 2012 
by Jonathan Turley's Blog 
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/02/final-curtain-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-of-citizens-into-law-as-final-act-of-2011/

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.
(c) 2012 Jonathan Turley Jonathan Turley

Jonathan Turley is a professor of law at George
Washington University.

___________________________________________

Portside aims to provide material of interest to people
on the left that will help them to interpret the world
and to change it.

Submit via email: [log in to unmask]

Submit via the Web: http://portside.org/submittous3

Frequently asked questions: http://portside.org/faq

Sub/Unsub: http://portside.org/subscribe-and-unsubscribe

Search Portside archives: http://portside.org/archive

Contribute to Portside: https://portside.org/donate