Home » Communism, Criticism, North America, Politics, Suppression » ACLU criticizes Obama over indefinite detention and torture act


ACLU criticizes Obama over indefinite detention and torture act

 
 
 
 
 
submit to reddit

“He will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law.”

These harsh words come courtesy of the executive director of the ACLU, formerly a supporter of the president but also just one of the many dissenters who have since have grown disillusioned with an administration tarnished by unfulfilled campaign promises and continuous constitutional violations.

When he signed the National Defense Authorization Act on New Year’s Eve, President Barack Obama said that he had his reservations over the controversial legislation that will allow for the indefinite detention of Americans.

Now some of the president’s pals are expressing their agreement with Obama’s own hesitation but say that the commander-in-chief should have thought harder before signing away the civil liberties of Americans.

Under the bill, which approves all defense spending for the 2012 fiscal year, certain provisions allow for the military detainment and torture of US citizens, indefinitely, essentially allowing for Guantanamo Bay-style prisons to be a real possibility for every American. As the act floated around Congress, an underground outrage erupted and activists attempted to keep the bill from leaving the House and the Senate, although a lack of media coverage largely left the matter hidden to the public. Despite this campaign, the legislation made it out of the Capitol Building and into the Oval Office last month, prompting advocates against the act to petition for the president to veto it.

Initially the Obama administration said the president’s advisers would recommend a veto, but later rescinded the threat. Senator Carl Levin eventually revealed that President Obama had insisted on adding the wording that has made NDAA such a target among activists who are frightened of the civil liberty-stripping capabilities.

One week after the president did ink the legislation, some of Obama’s old pals are saying they are in disbelief over how a former constitutional law professor could agree to such provisions that crush the law of the land.

“President Obama’s action … is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero says in a statement. Such a charge not only carries much clout because it comes courtesy of the head of such an integral and reputable advocacy group, but Romero himself was praising the president three years earlier after he won the 2008 election. Now that same administration is doing everything Romero thought it wouldn’t.

“I believe he knows what he needs to do to restore the America we believe in, to get us on back on track, to give us back our America, an America we never stopped believing in but have sorely missed for the past eight years,” Romero wrote in 2008 in an op-ed that encouraged the president to follow through on his campaign promise of closing Guantanamo Bay. “Call me naive, but I honestly believe he wants to do it. He promised us that on the campaign trail, and I believe it was more than an empty promise,” wrote Romero.

Three-quarters of the way through his presidency, Obama has now only left Gitmo remain open, but is going to be able to send his own citizens to its torture cells.

“We are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention authority in court,” adds Romero. “Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today.”

Other groups who had previously offered their endorsement to the president are saying they are upset as well.

“It is deeply troubling that the NDAA became law with the detention provisions intact,” reads a statement from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR. “We believe it is unconstitutional for our military to become a police force that would hold American citizens indefinitely without the right to trial or even to hear the charges brought against them.”

CAIR had long supported Obama for his protection of Muslim-American rights. Nearly one year ago Executive Director Nihad Awad told the media that the group welcomes Obama for his “decision to emphasize the fact that Muslims are contributing members of our society.” Only 12 months later, the group says they are now skeptical over how the president can now use his power to strip the rights of anyone.

“This ill-conceived and un-American legislation will forever be seen as a stain on our nation’s history – one that will ultimately be viewed with embarrassment and shame,” adds the advocacy group.

Although the powers of the act indeed offer the president the ability to indefinitely detain people, citizens or non, Obama said during signing that he would not interpret the legislation to mean as such.

“I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens,” added the president in a statement that accompanied the signing of NDAA. “My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.”

That memo does not, however, mean future heads of state will necessarily be excluded from following the orders authorized by Congress. In fact, the ACLU’s Romero tells The Atlantic, “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.”

“President Obama did pledge in a signing statement not to use this law to detain American citizens but this provides little comfort, as signing statements have no legal force and he has repeatedly failed to uphold similar promises in the face of political pressure — including his pledge to close Guantánamo within his first year in office,” adds the Center for Constitutional Rights in their own statement this week. “The law authorizes a future president, such as a President Romney, President Bachmann or President Perry, to use this authorization in the most aggressive manner available.

When he offered his John Hancock come signing time, the president acknowledged suspicious but went ahead with it anyway, noting, “The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”

“I guess promising that Americans wouldn’t be indefinitely detained, period, was too much of a stretch,” blogger Mary Wheeler adds.

Those very suspicions that Obama wrote of did not stop the president from following the plea of Congress though, less than a year until November elections make or break the legacy of the president.

If you ask many, though, that legacy has been tarnished by the NDAA.

“Our Founders were fearful of the military — and they purposely created a system of checks and balances to ensure we did not become a country under military rule,” Minnesota Senator Al Franken wrote of the bill on Huffington Post. Franken, a Democrat along with Obama, said he had agreed with parts of the bill but the controversial provisions alone were reason for him not to sign it.

“This bill undermines that core principle, which is why I could not support it.”

For Obama, that didn’t quite seem to matter as much.

Source

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
ACLU criticizes Obama over indefinite detention and torture act, 5.0 out of 5 based on 2 ratings
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  



RELATED ARTICLES

Did you like this information? Then please consider making a donation or subscribing to our Newsletter.

2 Responses to " ACLU criticizes Obama over indefinite detention and torture act "

  1. Hank says:

    Fuck Obama, and vote for Ron Paul

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  2. RW says:

    Can Americans Survive U.S. Government / Police Corruption Without Due Process?

    Reports of Police Corruption proliferate the Media—Police planting evidence, taking bribes, smuggling, selling drugs—falsifying reports; providing perjured testimony—sending innocent Americans to prison.

    Americans have reason to Fear Police. Corrupt Police and Government Agencies can potentially have a field day with the Dec. 2011 passed National Defense Authorization ACT of 2012 (NDAA). Under (NDAA) U.S. Government (does not need probable cause or evidence to Indefinitely Detain Americans without charges, no right to an attorney, trial or Habeas Corpus if suspected of being involved in terrorism.) Corrupt Police and Government Agents that plant evidence, falsify reports—provide perjured testimony can now cause innocent Americans to be dragged from their homes and (indefinitely incarcerated) for being a (suspected) terrorist or supporting Terrorism: Note no violent act is required to be charged with involvement in terrorism under (NDAA).

    Importantly Note: The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA)—mandates holding Americans’ (Indefinitely) in Military Custody. That would appear to include “Belligerents.” The term “Belligerent” in (NDAA) is so expansive and vague U.S. Government could deem anyone a “Belligerent”; even for exercising First Amendment Rights—speaking out for or against any issue; protesting a U.S. Government Policy; agency or coalition Partner.

    Under (NDAA) some observers believe U.S. Government will threaten Americans with Indefinite Detention that refuse to act as informants. U.S. Citizens should EXPECT such heavy-handed tactics by local police under (NDAA) as U.S. Government continues—to militarize local police. The East German Stasi Police used the threat of Indefinite Detention to create an army of neighborhood and other informants. After the East Berlin Wall came down it was discovered (Stasi Police Informant Files) if lined up back to back would extend 12-miles. Huge numbers of East Germans informed on their friends, neighbors, even love one to please their government handler; out of spite, because of mental problems and or to receive—government perks.

    Under the passed (NDAA) The National Defense Authorization ACT of 2012, corrupt police and false informant perjury are a serious threat to Americans’ Freedom because under the ACT there is no Due Process for Indefinitely Detained Americans. In effect Americans lost in Dec. 2011 their Constitution and Country To Fascist Legislation.

    It should be expected Indefinitely Detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings when interrogated or allowed legal counsel or a trial—will be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite Detention: Government can circumvent a U.S. Citizen Detainee’s right to assert the protections of the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment among others.

    Congress is now considering HR 3166 and S. 1698 also known as the “Enemy Expatriation Act” sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA) that would let Government Strip Your Citizenship Without a Conviction. Once an American’s Citizenship is stripped they have no rights whatsoever if suspected of being involved in terrorism. To read article Re: this bill, search: New Bill Known As Enemy Expatriation Act Would Allow Government To Strip Citizenship Without Conviction. To read the full text of the bill, go here:
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-3166

    Importantly: After (The Enemy Expatriation Act) is passed by Congress it will JOIN with the National Defense Authorization of 2012 (NDAA). If there was any doubt whether (NDAA) gave U.S. Government the power to Indefinitely Detain Americans on U.S. Soil including mere “Belligerents” that appears confirmed in the Enemy Expatriation Act. (The (Enemy Expatriation Act) grants U.S. Government the power to disappear U.S. Citizens (suspected of having or likely to provoke, engage in or support violent acts or hostilities against U.S. Government; U.S. Civilians; a U.S. Coalition Partner or threatens National Security.)

    Is the passed National Authorization Act of 2012 or the recently introduced Enemy Expatriation Act (Retroactive)? American activists should be concerned. Most U.S. activists and protestors don’t know what other activists and groups they networked or associated did in the past—perhaps illegal under (NDAA) or the (Enemy Expatriation Act). Both the National Authorization Act of 2012; and USA Patriot Act that NDAA refers are expansive and vague—what constitutes (1) supporting or aiding terrorists, (2) a terrorist act; (3) when someone is a “Combatant” or (4) “a Belligerent.” For example, Americans advocating, attending or supporting a meeting or protest demonstration against a U.S. Government Agency; Policy or U.S. Military Action—could be charged with (1) (2) (3) and (4) under NDAA and the Patriot Act.

    Some U.S. writers might be subject to Indefinite Detention under (NDAA) and introduced (Enemy Expatriation Act. It appears “Americans” who write on the Internet express an opinion against any entity of U.S. Government or its coalition partners—may under the broad and vague provisions of The Defense Authorization Act and Patriot Act be deemed by U.S. Government someone likely to provoke, engage in or support violent acts or hostilities against U.S. Government; U.S. Civilians; a U.S. Coalition Partner; or threaten National Security.

    When other countries passed Police State Laws like The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 or Enemy Expatriation Act, Citizens increasingly abstained from politically speaking out; visiting activist websites or posting comments that might be deemed inappropriate by their Police State Government, e.g. cause someone to lose their job; be investigated; disappeared and or detained in Police/Military Custody.

    If U.S. Government abuses it new powers granted by The National Defense Authorization ACT and perhaps soon—The Enemy Expatriation Act, it is foreseeable Americans wills revolt at the polls, move to recall large numbers of Congressman; want to change their Government through the voting process. It is doubtful the political and financial interests behind passing The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 and now The Enemy Expatriation Act would give up easily their entrenched power and influence over Congress: to keep their power, they would have to suspend or terminate U.S. Citizens’ Right to Vote. While that is hard to imagine in America, one can’t help recall history—how Hitler in 1933 got the German Parliament to pass legislation (similar to America’s National Defense Authorization ACT of 2012; USA Patriot Act, and pending Enemy Expatriation Act) Hitler shortly thereafter suspended elections; suspended Provisions in the German Constitution that protected Civil Liberties; told Parliament and the Supreme Court to go home: Suddenly German Citizens lost all voice in Government. Could that be the direction America is headed?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Leave a Reply


Copyright © 2009 The European Union Times – Breaking News, Latest News. All rights reserved.