Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Jonathan Turley chimes in on Obama & the NDAA. Another Constitutional scholar is appalled. [View all]
<snip>
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 only blissfully into the New Year.
<snip>
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 Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) 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.
<snip>
There are also those who continue the long-standing effort to excuse Obamas horrific record on civil liberties by either blaming others or the times. One successful myth is that there is an exception for citizens. The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is facially ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality. THe Administration and Democratic members are in full spin using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.
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 only blissfully into the New Year.
<snip>
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 Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) 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.
<snip>
There are also those who continue the long-standing effort to excuse Obamas horrific record on civil liberties by either blaming others or the times. One successful myth is that there is an exception for citizens. The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is facially ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality. THe Administration and Democratic members are in full spin using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.
More at Turley's blog. So, another Constitutional scholar is appalled and agrees that this bill is horrifying. Turley is someone I've followed for years. I don't always agree with him, but I respect his opinions and the invaluable voice of this Constitutional scholar over the hell of the Bush years......but I guess he's now going to be thrown under the bus, along with the ACLU, Greenwald and others who are trying to warn Americans!
Consider me appalled along with them. Their warnings are justified -- too bad they're falling on so many deaf ears.
101 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Jonathan Turley chimes in on Obama & the NDAA. Another Constitutional scholar is appalled. [View all]
tpsbmam
Jan 2012
OP
especially since only "you know who" is speaking out against this in their campaign
think
Jan 2012
#2
In other words, some anonymous people on the internet will disagree with him.
Dewey Finn
Jan 2012
#3
The "constitutional scholar" seems to rely on hyperbole, rather than the constitution, for arguments
bhikkhu
Jan 2012
#5
Said "constitutional scholar" just lost a case against Obama, and got spanked by the judge.
msanthrope
Jan 2012
#42
And the fact that the 2001 military authorization is appalling is beside the point?
eridani
Jan 2012
#54
As do you, going so far to ignore some of those who wrote the damn thing.
TheKentuckian
Jan 2012
#10
Incomplete--Turley just lost a case to Obama. Turley now criticizes Obama. nt
msanthrope
Jan 2012
#43
This is a terrible provision of the NDAA, but where's the outrage at Congress?
boxman15
Jan 2012
#13
Congress is useless and ineffective on both sides. Obama could have vetoed.
piratefish08
Jan 2012
#16
It's not that bizarre. It would take congress another month or two to pass it.
killbotfactory
Jan 2012
#37
Two months of no funding for the VA. I can imagine how kindly the "liberal media" would treat that.
Robb
Jan 2012
#45
Nah, better to do childish shit just to prove a point rather than do something constructive
uponit7771
Jan 2012
#99
And yet, most people stay away from voting in a non-presidential election year.
killbotfactory
Jan 2012
#26
Can Turley wait his turn please? This board is not yet done with the Greenwald hate festival.
JackRiddler
Jan 2012
#19
I take it Turley's still sore over the public spanking he got in Kucinich v. Obama?
msanthrope
Jan 2012
#40
Turley's is a reasonable if somewhat mild response to a fascist law. K&R (nt)
T S Justly
Jan 2012
#71
Oh, c'mon. We can trust the miliatary and government to do the right thing.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Jan 2012
#72
feh. turley likes to get his name in print. the compromise language makes clear that the ndaa cannot
struggle4progress
Jan 2012
#93