Jonathan Turley: The NDAA's Historic Assault on American Liberty

[marmar]

Published on Monday, January 2, 2012 by Jonathan Turley's Blog

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


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. ...............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/02-7

[ixion]

1. Yes, it was a horrible thing, on par with the passage of the MCA or

unPATRIOTic Act.

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.

[Demeter]

2. Not Extraordinary in a Police State, Banana Republic

proto-typical for fascists, actually.

[JEB]

3. Now there is some weight

behind the threat, "Watch what you say".

[Doctor_J]

4. Well, at least it was signed with reservations

so we got that goin' for us, which is nice.

?w=510

[blackspade]

5. Thanks for posting.

K&R