This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Real Reason for Obama's Threat to Veto the Indefinite Detention Bill (Hint: It's Not to Protect Liberty)
OBAMA WANTS TO VETO THE INDEFINITE DETENTION BILL BECAUSE IT WOULD HOLD THE U.S. TO THE GENEVA CONVENTION
I - like everyone else - am horrified by the Senate's passage of legislation that would allow for indefinite detention of Americans.
And at first, I - like many others - assumed that Obama's threat to veto the bill might be a good thing. But the truth is much more disturbing.
As former Wall Street Street editor and columnist Paul Craig Roberts correctly notes:
POLICE STATE STARTED YEARS AGOThe Obama regime’s objection to military detention is not rooted in concern for the constitutional rights of American citizens. The regime objects to military detention because the implication of military detention is that detainees are prisoners of war. As Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin put it: Should somebody determined “to be a member of an enemy force who has come to this nation or is in this nation to attack us as a member of a foreign enemy, should that person be treated according to the laws of war? The answer is yes.”
Detainees treated according to the laws of war have the protections of the Geneva Conventions. They cannot be tortured. The Obama regime opposes military detention, because detainees would have some rights. These rights would interfere with the regime’s ability to send detainees to CIA torture prisons overseas. [Yes, Obama is still apparently allowing "extraordinary renditions" to torture people abroad.] This is what the Obama regime means when it says that the requirement of military detention denies the regime “flexibility.”
The Bush/Obama regimes have evaded the Geneva Conventions by declaring that detainees are not POWs, but “enemy combatants,” “terrorists,” or some other designation that removes all accountability from the US government for their treatment.
By requiring military detention of the captured, Congress is undoing all the maneuvering that two regimes have accomplished in removing POW status from detainees.
A careful reading of the Obama regime’s objections to military detention supports this conclusion. (See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saps1867s_20111117.pdf)
The November 17 letter to the Senate from the Executive Office of the President says that the Obama regime does not want the authority it has under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Public Law 107-40, to be codified. Codification is risky, the regime says. “After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country.”
In other words, the regime is saying that under AUMF the executive branch has total discretion as to who it detains and how it treats detainees. Moreover, as the executive branch has total discretion, no one can find out what the executive branch is doing, who detainees are, or what is being done to them. Codification brings accountability, and the executive branch does not want accountability.
Those who see hope in Obama’s threatened veto have jumped to conclusions if they think the veto is based on constitutional scruples.
Even if Obama's threatened veto was for more noble purposes, the fact is that it would not change anything, because the U.S. government claimed the power to indefinitely detain and assassinate American citizens years ago.
For example, law school professor and National Lawyers Guild president Marjorie Cohn pointed out in 2006:
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 governing the treatment of detainees is the culmination of relentless fear-mongering by the Bush administration since the September 11 terrorist attacks.
Because the bill was adopted with lightning speed, barely anyone noticed that it empowers Bush to declare not just aliens, but also U.S. citizens, "unlawful enemy combatants."
***
Anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on Bush’s list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government’s policies could be declared an "unlawful enemy combatant" and imprisoned indefinitely. That includes American citizens.
Glenn Greenwald and Fire Dog Lake's Emptywheel have also documented that the White House has believed for many years that it possessed the power to indefinitely detain Americans. See this, this, this, and this.
I noted Friday:
The police state started in 2001.
Specifically, on 9/11, Vice President Dick Cheney initiated Continuity of Government Plans that ended America’s constitutional form of government (at least for some undetermined period of time.)
On that same day, a national state of emergency was declared … and that state of emergency has continuously been in effect up to today.
The Obama administration has also said for more than a year and a half it could target American citizens for assassination without any trial or due process.
In 2005, Chris Floyd pointed out that the ability of the government to assassinate U.S. citizens started the very week of 9/11:
On September 17, 2001, George W. Bush signed an executive order authorizing the use of "lethal measures" against anyone in the world whom he or his minions designated an "enemy combatant." This order remains in force today. No judicial evidence, no hearing, no charges are required for these killings; no law, no border, no oversight restrains them. Bush has also given agents in the field carte blanche to designate "enemies" on their own initiative and kill them as they see fit.
The existence of this universal death squad – and the total obliteration of human liberty it represents – has not provoked so much as a crumb, an atom, a quantum particle of controversy in the American Establishment, although it's no secret. The executive order was first bruited in the Washington Post in October 2001 .... The New York Times added further details in December 2002. That same month, Bush officials made clear that the dread edict also applied to American citizens, as the Associated Press reported.
The first officially confirmed use of this power was the killing of an American citizen in Yemen by a CIA drone missile on November 3, 2002. A similar strike occurred in Pakistan this month, when a CIA missile destroyed a house and purportedly killed Abu Hamza Rabia, a suspected al Qaeda figure. But the only bodies found at the site were those of two children, the houseowner's son and nephew, Reuters reports. The grieving father denied any connection to terrorism. An earlier CIA strike on another house missed Rabia but killed his wife and children, Pakistani officials reported.
But most of the assassinations are carried out in secret, quietly, professionally, like a contract killing for the mob. As a Pentagon document unearthed by the New Yorker in December 2002 put it, the death squads must be "small and agile," and "able to operate clandestinely, using a full range of official and non-official cover arrangements to…enter countries surreptitiously."
The dangers of this policy are obvious, as a UN report on "extrajudicial killings" noted in December 2004: " Empowering governments to identify and kill 'known terrorists' places no verifiable obligation upon them to demonstrate in any way that those against whom lethal force is used are indeed terrorists… While it is portrayed as a limited 'exception' to international norms, it actually creates the potential for an endless expansion of the relevant category to include any enemies of the State, social misfits, political opponents, or others."
It's hard to believe that any genuine democracy would accept a claim by its leader that he could have anyone killed simply by labeling them an "enemy." It's hard to believe that any adult with even the slightest knowledge of history or human nature could countenance such unlimited, arbitrary power, knowing the evil it is bound to produce. Yet this is what the great and good in America have done. Like the boyars of old, they not only countenance but celebrate their enslavement to the ruler.
[Note from Washington's Blog: 9/11 allowed those who glorify war to implement plans they had lusted after for many years (and see this), even though 9/11 happened because Dick Cheney was - at best - totally incompetent, and the government is now doing things which increase the risk of terrorism, instead of doing the things which could actually make us safer.]
***
This was vividly demonstrated in ... Bush's State of the Union address in January 2003, delivered to Congress and televised nationwide during the final frenzy of war-drum beating before the assault on Iraq. Trumpeting his successes in the Terror War, Bush claimed that "more than 3,000 suspected terrorists" had been arrested worldwide – "and many others have met a different fate." His face then took on the characteristic leer, the strange, sickly half-smile it acquires whenever he speaks of killing people: "Let's put it this way. They are no longer a problem."
In other words, the suspects – and even Bush acknowledged they were only suspects – had been murdered. Lynched. Killed by agents operating unsupervised in that shadow world where intelligence, terrorism, politics, finance and organized crime meld together in one amorphous, impenetrable mass. Killed on the word of a dubious informer, perhaps: a tortured captive willing to say anything to end his torment, a business rival, a personal foe, a bureaucrat looking to impress his superiors, a paid snitch in need of cash, a zealous crank pursuing ethnic, tribal or religious hatreds – or any other purveyor of the garbage data that is coin of the realm in the shadow world.
Bush proudly held up this hideous system as an example of what he called "the meaning of American justice." And the assembled legislators…applauded. Oh, how they applauded!
This is, of course, the real meaning of the famous Star Wars scene:
»
- advertisements -
Actually, yes. There is no accepted definition for the word "terrorist." It's a made up word, applied arbitrarily. You are a tool.
Yes to what?...vet?...out with it then, we're all friends here ;-)
"There is no accepted definition for the word "terrorist."
Whether you choose to accept the standard definition of a terrorist or not is your problem. Mine is, a civilian using violence against other civilians, while dressed as a civilian, to accomplish a political goal.
YMMV I'm sure.
Whether you choose to accept the standard definition of a terrorist...
Again, there is no standard definition. There are a lot of politicized, self-serving ones, however. This one for example:
Mine is, a civilian using violence against other civilians, while dressed as a civilian, to accomplish a political goal.
How convenient that your definition exempts governments and their militaries from being slandered as "terrorists." And what's a poor fellow to do when your own government is in cahoots with the occupiers?
Yours are simply the weasel words of a corrupt and dying military empire trying to legalize murder and theft.
"How convenient that your definition exempts governments and their militaries from being slandered as "terrorists."
Why would being called a terrorist be considered a slander if it were not something vile & evil?...your word not mine.
So there must be an acceptable definition afterall. I rest my case.
You chose to jump me...I told you I was asking a vet his opinion, as he is the one who wears a fucking target around (his uniform)...then I asked a simple question of you...are you a vet or not?
Yes or no?
Why would being called a terrorist be considered a slander if it were not something vile & evil?...your word not mine.
So there must be an acceptable definition afterall. I rest my case.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism
"There is neither an academic nor an international legal consensus regarding the proper definition of the word 'terrorism'. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of 'terrorism'....These difficulties arise from the fact that the term 'terrorism' is politically and emotionally charged."
Your faith in government labeling is touching by the way.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Agreed.
As long as they only engage the military...not civilians. Which would make him a terrorist. A freedom fighter does not kill the thing he loves.
We assume he fights for every citizens freedom not just his own correct?
Nmewn, there are more facets to war than just engaging military targets. When you are being endlessly attacked by a super power with endless lines of supply and unlimited resources (via printing presses), and because you are just a tinpot nation without the wherewithall to reply, then you go Indian, barbarian, guerilla.
You would pick up arms as well, if your family and friends were being masacred. If the people of the super power do not stop the aggression by demanding that their govt cease, they thereby support it and in so doing become reasonable targets; just as the innocents in civilian rags are in the tinpot country under siege. That the US kills civillians by the hundreds of thousands in the countries they invade, justifies the response, in their eyes. You come over here, we'll come over there. You kill my family indiscriminately over here, you'll understand if I play the same card over there.
A freedom fighter kills whomever he has to using whatever tactics he can. Blowback is an expectation when you don't declare war on someone. The US hasn't declared war and is therefore the aggressor. If you don't declare war, you are no more than a terrorist. There are many reasons that the US is in the Mid-East, but the disingenuous "We're there to give them Democracy", ain't one of them.
Yes, I'm a vet. One with a few years on me but none the less, a vet.
This bill needs to be vetoed, the slimeballs who voted for it named and villified, tried and hung for treason. The congress needs to be swept of each and every member who has not lived up to their constitutional oath and we'd better get this nation back on track and back into the hands of the peoplebecause unscrupulous tirds have usurped our liberty.
Yes, the amendment needs to be stripped out.
I believe the end game has been nothing but a strawman from the start. Put it up and if it passes they have something they can redefine at a later date...if it gets knocked down the One gets to claim "see I believe in the rights & liberties of the citizen, you need me to protect you from the neo-cons"...lol.
As for civilian deaths by the military. We don't carpet bomb anymore. We don't nuke cities (although we retain the option). The rare exception of a GI going off the rails and killing civilians is investigated and punished...you were in, you know thats true. Which is part of the advantage of wearing a uniform, to know which side is doing or did what.
A terrorist hiding within the population puts the population at risk and should never be given equal treatment by virtue of the fact they shield themselves within that population. Whens the last time a GI used a woman or child as a human shield? He would be reported or fragged the next day.
To my mind a terrorist is different than a freedom fighter or a guerrilla.
A terrorist never identifies as a terrorist and attacks innocent civilians on purpose to incite terror within the population so that the population begs an end to the fighting on terms more suitable to the terrorist.
There was no great honor or courage shown in that hotel in Mumbai. What strategic advantage was accomplished there? Nothing.
Retalitory tactics there Nwmen. There wasn't much to gain other than to show their brothers in arms that they were active, serious and prepared to die for a cause. They were seeking support and it was showey. Not bad tactics and they got to revenge a few deaths on their side. Carpet bombing is out but there are still hundreds of thousands killed by US forces in undeclared wars in the Mid-east. There will be untold numbers affected for years via that ever so cleaned up war machine that now only delivers death through depleted uranium rounds. Criminal barbarity from a country reknown to be god-fearing religious folk. Sick bastards.
Sick. USA, seek help.
I already beat the shit out of this stupid mind fart "labeling meme" last night. Its old already.
And you're faith in your high brow intellectualism as an excuse for barbariism...not so much.
Squid ink
You spontaneoulsy combusted ;-)
True and ironically, america's new dirty rules and techniques CAME from the people we call dirty. We just laundered them and made them dirtier.
LOL! Yup, DICTATORS were just waiting to play dirty. Oh, how did they get to be DICTATORS again?
in honor of oBLAHma, i've created penis shaped french fries, DICK TATERS! delicious!!!
Leave it to the first American President of African descent to continue making the enforcement activities of the KKK (kidnapping, extra-judicial execution, subversion of law enforcement an the bar, firebombing by drones et al) the law of the land.
Uncle Sam(bo's) cabin of torture and mayhem
Yep, that 'White Guilt' has backfired like a mothafucka!
Of course. A brilliant, evil and transparent move by TPTB (mostly white). Somehow the packaging makes the gifts look better, even when they're a regift from Texas. Orwell is smiling.
that's Osamabo to you!
Who dat?
I think that might be, "Who it be?"
Perhaps we should consult the new six-figure Ebonics Translator at the FBI.
Americans used to like the Geneva Convention ... in the days of Hogan's Heroes.
the origional GW would have had more complex views. He would have wanted confirmation of the actions of the targets. citizenship is as defined by allegience as location of birth. GW sloemny promised that the military shall NEVER turn against the civilian population, yet, it has.
the problem resides in the INS. the ins lets in all sorts of self proclaimed enemies of liberty. the rest follows suit. very sad.
http://expose2.wordpress.com
The winners get to prosecute the losers under the Geneva Convention. The losers are ... just losers.
Americans NEVER liked the Geneva Conventions. They just tolerated them as they force other countries to KowTow to thier interpretations.
Dont pick on just the usa.
No country truly loves the geneva conventions and that is why they are so important and necessary.
and a greenie on ya.
The Geneva conventions took centuries to develop and are there for a very good reason. They work both ways incidentally so don't start bleating if US personnel are tortured by, for instance, Iran, where there never was any moral high ground and which would, of course, regard US personnel as enemy combatants or terrorists (This Big Brother speak is fun, isn't it?).
But given that the US Government/Congress now wants to tread on its own Constitution and abuse its own citizens all by itself, I don't suppose this means very much any longer.
Good point. Lucky Iran didn't re-classify those American "hikers" as non-combatant terorists and waterboard them to get a confession then throw them in the local CIA prison for 10 years.