HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Editorials & Other Articles (Forum) » Jonathan Turley: The NDAA...

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 05:02 PM

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

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



5 replies, 2633 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 5 replies Author Time Post
Reply Jonathan Turley: The NDAA's Historic Assault on American Liberty (Original post)
marmar Jan 2012 OP
ixion Jan 2012 #1
Demeter Jan 2012 #2
JEB Jan 2012 #3
Doctor_J Jan 2012 #4
blackspade Jan 2012 #5

Response to marmar (Original post)

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 05:06 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 01:08 AM

2. Not Extraordinary in a Police State, Banana Republic

 

proto-typical for fascists, actually.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 01:00 PM

3. Now there is some weight

 

behind the threat, "Watch what you say".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 02:00 PM

4. Well, at least it was signed with reservations

 

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

?w=510

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmar (Original post)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 03:50 AM

5. Thanks for posting.

K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread