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