Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Real Reason for Obama's Threat to Veto Indefinite Detention Bill (Hint: It's Not to Protect Liberty)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 09:45 PM
Original message
Real Reason for Obama's Threat to Veto Indefinite Detention Bill (Hint: It's Not to Protect Liberty)
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/real-reason-obamas...

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:

The Obama regimes 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 regimes 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 regimes objections to military detention supports this conclusion. (See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legis... )

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 Obamas threatened veto have jumped to conclusions if they think the veto is based on constitutional scruples.


POLICE STATE STARTED YEARS AGO



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...
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
IDFbunny Donating Member (530 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. I wont even get to him if its greater than two-thirds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
jaxx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
2. Unrec for posting that crap.
Craig is a crap writer from a crap website. Jeez
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AverageJoe90 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-11 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Agreed.....sorry Demeter. nt
Edited on Tue Dec-06-11 07:41 PM by AverageJoe90
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-05-11 11:20 PM
Response to Original message
3. There is no "indefinite detention bill"
Edited on Mon Dec-05-11 11:21 PM by bhikkhu
The National Security Authorization Act, bill # 1867, is what is referred to. Its been around for some time, and the passages that some people thought allowed indefinite detention were re-written and added to for clarity, to the point that there is really nothing to worry about.

I wouldn't particularly defend Obama's veto-threat, but to understand it you'd have to look at a long history of that sort of thing over the decades. The head of the executive branch, charged with the defense and security of citizens here and abroad, traditionally objects to any reining in of his ability to perform the task. In any case, the bill as it stands now seemsto be fine (by me, at least), and I doubt that the veto threat will amount to anything.

For the curious, I'd always recommend reading the actual bill, at least in summary, to have some idea what is being discussed. Bloggers and journalists even have a bad record lately for writing about things they haven't even looked at, so the best course is to go to the source before settling on an opinion:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1867... or go to the Library of Congress THOMAS site for whole text of the bill.

on edit - :rofl: - I just noticed where this OP has gotten reposted to - thanks mods!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mrarundale Donating Member (281 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-12-11 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #3
15. I dunno, this sounds kind of "indefinite" to me -
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867 :
SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

....bla bla....

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
RZM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-11 12:32 AM
Response to Original message
4. Usually the mods delete or lock Paul Craig Roberts threads
Is the new policy to move them here?

Roberts is about as paranoid as it gets. He needs to be taken with more than a pinch of salt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
kickysnana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-11 04:16 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. A couple of times even George Will got it right.
I am guessing if he did not use the world "regime" sent it here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-08-11 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. And he's a white supremacist darling of VDARE...
he should be locked every time he's posted here.

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stockholmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-07-11 01:45 AM
Response to Original message
7. to all the unreccers.... Paul Craig Roberts DID NOT write this, sheesh
Also, ignore this article's warnings at your peril. Way too much knee-jerk smugness and normalcy bias from both the force-fed political spectrums in the US.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-07-11 04:16 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. ??? The excerpt attributed to Paul Craig Roberts was written by him.
Which, if I'm not mistaken, is the vast majority of the opening post.
75% http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28030
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
stockholmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-07-11 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. the PCR quote is just one part of the original article, which was written by the blog's author
Edited on Wed Dec-07-11 05:52 PM by stockholmer
Here is the original post:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/the-real-reason-...


Here are other links in the article:

The Whitehouse

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legis...


The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/opinion/28thu1.html


The Los Angeles Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ackerman28sep...


Counterpunch Magazine

http://www.counterpunch.org/cohn09302006.html


Glen Greenwald

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/01/congress_endorsing_mili... /


Fire Dog Lake's Empty Wheel Blog

http://www.emptywheel.net/2011/11/18/congress-and-the-a... /

http://www.emptywheel.net/2011/11/30/efforts-to-combat-...

http://www.emptywheel.net/2011/11/19/because-of-latif-s... /


Chris Floyd

http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?option=com_content...



Amnesty International

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510632005



Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...



Guardian UK

http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,3604,834290,0...



Information Clearinghouse

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info//article11216....



The New Yorker Magazine

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2009/07/...



CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/sotu.transcri... /

-----------------------------------------------------------------------



The article also self-references many other articles from Washington's Blog itself, with dozens of other links and sources.

It is extremely disingenuous for people to say this is a 'Paul Craig Roberts' written article. Following their logic, one could claim it is a New York Times, a Guardian UK, or a CNN article as well, which of course, it is not.

Furthermore, the unreccers offer nothing but the same tired old ad hominen attacks based off this misrepresentation and refuse to deal with the myriad cogent issues and concerns that this article justifiably raises.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-08-11 04:02 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. I guess some people just associate DU posts with the author that wrote 75% of the words in it. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-08-11 05:56 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. your final statement verges on bizarre
Furthermore, the unreccers offer nothing but the same tired old ad hominen attacks based off this misrepresentation and refuse to deal with the myriad cogent issues and concerns that this article justifiably raises.


Did you read bhikkhu's comment? At the moment it stands unrebutted.

I learned here years ago that sometimes it's wiser just to point out that an author has no credibility than to wade into specific reasons why the author is wrong -- because very few people will take the time to engage the specifics.

When people on one side offer facts, while people on the other congratulate themselves on their edginess, in my experience that often reflects the actual balance of the underlying evidence, not just the personalities involved.

The Obama administration should be subject to careful scrutiny. I don't see anything careful about simply averring: "The Obama regime opposes military detention, because detainees would have some rights." Citing lots of sources doesn't, per se, help to prove that point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-11 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Senator Levin
"Senator Levin revealed - It was Obama who required the Indefinite Detainment Bill INCLUDE U.S. Citizens as part of the wording!"

http://sherriequestioningall.blogspot.com/2011/12/senat...

( with videoclip )

What`s up with this? The Obama-administration wants to have the military jail americans without a trial?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
mrarundale Donating Member (281 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-12-11 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. I'm confused 'bout that cuz
The language of 1031 seems to prevent current laws toward US citizens from changing - or am I not understanding it? and 1032 has a US citizen waiver...Also, doesn't this give the power to the military and overstep executive authority and wouldn't that be the "real reason" the WH would want to veto it? (other than the fact that it sux). What bugs me about this is the articles are mostly from non mainstream sources and speculate about it but they don't show/decipher the actual language (maybe cuz it is so ambiguous). Plus, Carl Levin was one of the authors of the bill and even if it is just non Americans, it is still bad, so what is he complaining about?( I suspect the "deal" has something to do with the Mexican border just a guess)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867 :
Subtitle D--Detainee Matters

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-11 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. No veto
Edited on Thu Dec-15-11 02:05 PM by k-robjoe

"Obama has dropped his threat to veto the bill and is now expected to sign it into law."

http://www.bushstole04.com/fakewar/obama_detention.htm

"The measure was passed after US President Barack Obama failed to veto the bid as he originally vowed. It allows US officials to indefinitely hold suspects without charge in military custody.

American citizens can also be jailed indefinitely upon the decision of the US Supreme Court or future presidents.

The measure also forbids transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to US soil, making it harder to close down the infamous prison.

International rights groups including Human Rights Watch said Obama's decision to back the bill puts him on the wrong side of the history.

"By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch.

"In the past, Obama has lauded the importance of being on the right side of history, but today he is definitely on the wrong side.", Roth added."

http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2011/12/us-house-...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 22nd 2014, 10:29 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC