Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
10 Reasons the US is No Longer the Land of the Free
Every year, the State Department issues reports on individual rights in other countries, monitoring the passage of restrictive laws and regulations around the world. Iran, for example, has been criticized for denying fair public trials and limiting privacy, while Russia has been taken to task for undermining due process. Other countries have been condemned for the use of secret evidence and torture.
Even as we pass judgment on countries we consider unfree, Americans remain confident that any definition of a free nation must include their own — the land of free. Yet, the laws and practices of the land should shake that confidence. In the decade since Sept. 11, 2001, this country has comprehensively reduced civil liberties in the name of an expanded security state. The most recent example of this was the National Defense Authorization Act, signed Dec. 31, which allows for the indefinite detention of citizens. At what point does the reduction of individual rights in our country change how we define ourselves?
While each new national security power Washington has embraced was controversial when enacted, they are often discussed in isolation. But they don’t operate in isolation. They form a mosaic of powers under which our country could be considered, at least in part, authoritarian. Americans often proclaim our nation as a symbol of freedom to the world while dismissing nations such as Cuba and China as categorically unfree. Yet, objectively, we may be only half right. Those countries do lack basic individual rights such as due process, placing them outside any reasonable definition of “free,” but the United States now has much more in common with such regimes than anyone may like to admit.
These countries also have constitutions that purport to guarantee freedoms and rights. But their governments have broad discretion in denying those rights and few real avenues for challenges by citizens — precisely the problem with the new laws in this country.
The list of powers acquired by the U.S. government since 9/11 puts us in rather troubling company.
Assassination of U.S. citizens
President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)
Indefinite detention
Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism. While the administration claims that this provision only codified existing law, experts widely contest this view, and the administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal courts. The government continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for “prolonged detention.”)
Arbitrary justice
The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections. Bush claimed this authority in 2001, and Obama has continued the practice. (Egypt and China have been denounced for maintaining separate military justice systems for selected defendants, including civilians.)
Warrantless searches
The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens’ finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records. The government can use “national security letters” to demand, without probable cause, that organizations turn over information on citizens — and order them not to reveal the disclosure to the affected party. (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan operate under laws that allow the government to engage in widespread discretionary surveillance.)
Secret evidence
The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts. It also forces the dismissal of cases against the United States by simply filing declarations that the cases would make the government reveal classified information that would harm national security — a claim made in a variety of privacy lawsuits and largely accepted by federal judges without question. Even legal opinions, cited as the basis for the government’s actions under the Bush and Obama administrations, have been classified. This allows the government to claim secret legal arguments to support secret proceedings using secret evidence. In addition, some cases never make it to court at all. The federal courts routinely deny constitutional challenges to policies and programs under a narrow definition of standing to bring a case.
War crimes
The world clamored for prosecutions of those responsible for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, but the Obama administration said in 2009 that it would not allow CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for such actions. This gutted not just treaty obligations but the Nuremberg principles of international law. When courts in countries such as Spain moved to investigate Bush officials for war crimes, the Obama administration reportedly urged foreign officials not to allow such cases to proceed, despite the fact that the United States has long claimed the same authority with regard to alleged war criminals in other countries. (Various nations have resisted investigations of officials accused of war crimes and torture. Some, such as Serbia and Chile, eventually relented to comply with international law; countries that have denied independent investigations include Iran, Syria and China.)
Secret court
The government has increased its use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has expanded its secret warrants to include individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations. In 2011, Obama renewed these powers, including allowing secret searches of individuals who are not part of an identifiable terrorist group. The administration has asserted the right to ignore congressional limits on such surveillance. (Pakistan places national security surveillance under the unchecked powers of the military or intelligence services.)
Immunity from judicial review
Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy. (Similarly, China has maintained sweeping immunity claims both inside and outside the country and routinely blocks lawsuits against private companies.)
Continual monitoring of citizens
The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review. (Saudi Arabia has installed massive public surveillance systems, while Cuba is notorious for active monitoring of selected citizens.)
Extraordinary renditions
The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects. The Obama administration says it is not continuing the abuses of this practice under Bush, but it insists on the unfettered right to order such transfers — including the possible transfer of U.S. citizens.
These new laws have come with an infusion of money into an expanded security system on the state and federal levels, including more public surveillance cameras, tens of thousands of security personnel and a massive expansion of a terrorist-chasing bureaucracy.
Some politicians shrug and say these increased powers are merely a response to the times we live in. Thus, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) could declare in an interview last spring without objection that “free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war.” Of course, terrorism will never “surrender” and end this particular “war.”
Other politicians rationalize that, while such powers may exist, it really comes down to how they are used. This is a common response by liberals who cannot bring themselves to denounce Obama as they did Bush. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), for instance, has insisted that Congress is not making any decision on indefinite detention: “That is a decision which we leave where it belongs — in the executive branch.”
And in a signing statement with the defense authorization bill, Obama said he does not intend to use the latest power to indefinitely imprison citizens. Yet, he still accepted the power as a sort of regretful autocrat.
An authoritarian nation is defined not just by the use of authoritarian powers, but by the ability to use them. If a president can take away your freedom or your life on his own authority, all rights become little more than a discretionary grant subject to executive will.
The framers lived under autocratic rule and understood this danger better than we do. James Madison famously warned that we needed a system that did not depend on the good intentions or motivations of our rulers: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”
Benjamin Franklin was more direct. In 1787, a Mrs. Powel confronted Franklin after the signing of the Constitution and asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got — a republic or a monarchy?” His response was a bit chilling: “A republic, Madam, if you can keep it.”
Since 9/11, we have created the very government the framers feared: a government with sweeping and largely unchecked powers resting on the hope that they will be used wisely.
The indefinite-detention provision in the defense authorization bill seemed to many civil libertarians like a betrayal by Obama. While the president had promised to veto the law over that provision, Levin, a sponsor of the bill, disclosed on the Senate floor that it was in fact the White House that approved the removal of any exception for citizens from indefinite detention.
Dishonesty from politicians is nothing new for Americans. The real question is whether we are lying to ourselves when we call this country the land of the free.
91 Comments so far
Show AllI don't like Ron Paul for many reasons but Mr. Roberts makes many good points.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/01/14/americas-last-chance/
http://tarpley.net/2011/12/28/critique-of-ron-pauls-austerity-plan/
Thanks Stevep, Paul Craig does indeed make many important points regarding Ron Paul, points that should make every American who cares about liberty and the constitution give their support to Paul, the only candidate who seems to respect the constitution. "Given the facts before you, you are out of your mind if you think Ron Paul’s rhetoric against the welfare state is more important than his defense of liberty." Paul Craig Roberts
The REAL war on liberty is the ongoing war on the poor - from union busting, to declining wages to elimination of welfare medicaid and social security, to, especially our savage world-topping population of the imprisoned. I am shocked this article does not mention this, but what can I expect in an article written by a rich bourgeois professor in an elite DC university.
A Ron Paul presidency will enormously exasperate this war. Considering that his economic philosophy considers "property rights" to supersede all other rights. Paul and all his congressional buddys will probably even bring back debtor's prisons. Being unable to pay a debt is stealing after all - often felony-level larceny - by his "libertarian' logic.
"The REAL war on liberty is the ongoing war on the poor - from union busting, to declining wages to elimination of welfare medicaid and social security, to, especially our savage world-topping population of the imprisoned."
I am not a libertarian. The war on the poor is the natural result of capitalism and none of the candidates running have an anti-capitalism platform. The so-called war on drugs has done more to incarcerate the poor and minorities than anything else and Ron Paul favors legalization which ought to unlock more than a few prison cells. I feel your pain, I share it but my calculation is that Ron Paul doing well in the Republican nomination process will help keep at least some people's attention focused on important constitutional issues that I believe really do matter to us all.
exacerbate
is there a difference between "indefinite" and "prolonged"?
Not from the inside.
Yes, the spelling.
His name is Mr. Turley, and he tells it like it is.
Depressing, but the rule of law in this country is dead in the water.
Funny thing about all those new powers, hardly any impact to corporate bodies. They now have the vote without any of the responsibilities.
Who needs redcoats when you have the Department of Homeland Security?
"the National Defense Authorization Act, signed Dec. 31, which allows for the indefinite detention of citizens"
You know what makes the situation in 21st century Merka particularly precarious. It has been a wholesale degradation of civil/human rights in Merka concurrent with the elites' feverish escalation of their criminal theft of public wealth.
Merka's headed for a big showdown, ehh? It's gonna be great.
Once again the silence from the left as their President takes us hard right, is deafening. How do you CD Progressives feel about your great savior now? What nothing to say, I thought so.
"nothing to say"
we hear you.
Oh come on, iwonder. Plenty has been said since Obama became president and showed his true colors. Where have you been?
Ten reasons why America is no Longer the land of th free, your republicans trying to take away Social Security,Medicare,healthcare,heat assistance for the poor,food stamps, the war on womens rights, no more family planning or birth control, or maybe giving subsidies to big oil, big pharma, mega corperations, insurance companies, corporate farmers. Tax breaks for the top one percent, CITZENS UNITED, I could go on but I met ten reasons long ago, Obstructionism from you righties has fucked America, making Obama look bad at any cost to the working class and poor, greedy bastards in the name of god, may you rot in hell.
And, Obama and the Democrats support almost ALL of the following: trying to take away Social Security, Medicare, healthcare, heat assistance for the poor, food stamps, the war on womens rights, no more family planning or birth control, or maybe giving subsidies to big oil, big pharma, mega corperations, insurance companies, corporate farmers, tax breaks for the top one percent, and CITZENS UNITED.
dkshaw -- What's so frustrating is that Obama actually did denounce the Citizens United decision in his state of the union speech. Frustrating because that appears to have been empty rhetoric.
"The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review. (Saudi Arabia has installed massive public surveillance systems, while Cuba is notorious for active monitoring of selected citizens.)"
There are two issues here. First, the violation of civil rights. Second is the agenda behind the violation. So imagine violating the civil rights of a mafia thug. At some point you have to draw the line, and violate the civil rights of a thug to protect the public interests. In the case of Merka and the terrorist, we weigh the costs imposed by Merka and by the terrorist. If Merka prevails, the cost of the terrorist is temporarily dampened while the cost of Merkan business as usual rages on. Cuba targets capitalists in Cuba. If Cuba prevails, the cost of the capitalist is temporarily dampened and the cost of Cuban socialism rages on. What are these costs then? I contend that the greatest cost of all these, by far, is the cost of Merkan business as usual. Decimation, at a feverish rate, of everything from biodiversity to law and order, from prosperity to human spirit/fulfillment, on a MASSIVE scale. Second is the cost of capitalism gaining a toehold in Cuba. It's a great cost, because we need socialism, in some form. Third is the cost of the terrorist, the small isolated elements of the community arbitrarily targeted by terror activity. Bad but not as bad. Fourth is the cost of Cuban socialism, again, the victims are a small number in comparison. We note that were Merkan imperial oppression of planet earth terminated, there would be little incentive for the rest of the aggression in question. The big kahuna is obligated to act first. Let the obvious into your debate. Consider ethical standards such as Kant's Categorical Imperative. Get to the truth.
Its good someone picked up on that distinction, particularly considering those with money can leave while the impoverished cannot. Slightly off that point, learned the other day that the taliban had outlawed poppy growing approx yr before labeled terrorists so drug trade could continue to foster pension investment flows on wall st. Worst of all was the revealing fact that only one of many would stop this support of pension fund growth vs getting drugs off our streets/schools.
"So imagine violating the civil rights of a mafia thug. At some point you have to draw the line, and violate the civil rights of a thug to protect the public interests."
In relevance to the article, I think it is more apropos to speak in terms of the Mafia violating the rights of ordinary citizens because the Mafia is an integral (and powerful) part our military police state... and the rest of us are easy targets a la COINTELPRO style operations (now on steroids).
There is no question that 'targets' (socialists, environmentalists, animal rights activists, etc.) often (maybe always) have files full of completely false 'info' (intentionally fabricated).
How do you think that will assist 'targets' in court (assuming they ever get to court), when testimony and evidence can both be secret? especially given the right to torture? so, confessions of complete made up crap... are sure to be included in case files.
This is not the time for escapist argument. This is the time to realize that a completely corrupt system (run by unethical disconnected sociopaths) can throw you into prison at anytime and you have no recourse. How does that feel? Go with it! It's the only sane reaction!
I think we are actually much further along the path toward a full-fledged police state than professor Turley indicates.
I can easily think of an 11th very obvious indication that we are no longer living in a free country, and I am sure that other commenters at CD could easily add a few more to the list: My "candidate" elephant-in-the-room is simply the fact that the United States evidently has a greater prison population, both in terms of absolute numbers and with respect to the percentage of the population, then any other country on Earth! I have also heard, at least in terms of recent history, that the only country that has been worse than this was the Soviet Union under Stalin during the time of his infamous purges.
By googling "world prison population list 2011" I found the following graphic chart at http://chartsbin.com/view/eqq. Admittedly, there may be better or more authoritative sites out there, but this is one of the first ones that Google came up with, and it's a quite shocking revelation to look at it. The US prison population rate of nearly 750 per 100,000 ppl is shown in bright crimson, and the only other country that is close to it is Russia, shown in bright red, with a rate of almost 600 per 100,000. Few other countries even come close. The prison population rate for Canada is dramatically lower, for example, but is almost identical to that of China (believe it or not, China's prison population rate is even lower than that of the Czech Republic, where I am currently residing!)
In absolute numbers, the US clearly leads the pack with a total of nearly 2,300,000 inmates, while China lags significantly behind with only about 1,600,000 inmates, or about 70% of the US figure. In terms of historical data, the wikipedia article on "Incarceration in the United States" backs up my understanding that only the former Soviet Union ever beat the US in terms of percentage values, but still NOT in absolute numbers!
I believe that comparisons with countries in ancient or medieval times would be difficult, especially since the distinction between "slaves" and "prisoners" was often not made, but I would still hazard a guess than in ancient times few countries would have had the resources necessary to maintain an outrageously large prison population.
Note that one of the main reasons for the large prison population in the US is the excessive length of prison sentences. There are countries in Europe that have higher annual prison admission rates than the US, but they don't keep most offenders in prison for very long, hence the difference! Other reasons listed include rigid sentencing guidelines, mandatory minimum sentences, "three strikes laws", and the large number of people behind bars for non-violent drug offences.
All in all, however, if the definition of a "police state" is that you have large numbers of people in prison, then the US qualifies"in spades"!
All right, does anyone out there have a candidate for the 12th obvious reason that we are no longer a free country?
the financial debt to China.
Three reason you fail to mention for our huge prison population: 1) the high recidivism rate in the United States. Unlike some countries (Canada, for instance) we do not even try to rehabilitate prison inmates. Instead we put them into a brutal place where they spend most of their time learning to survive. 2) It's possible to go to jail for something like smoking a joint, and once you are in jail, you quickly learn 'what it's all about'. In other words, you are in a school for criminals, run by those who have been in the system for awhile--including psychopaths, murderers, thieves, etc. 3) Once convicted for a crime you are made into a second class citizen until the day you die. Furthermore, it's almost impossible to support yourself in a legal manner once out of jail, for no one will hire you.
What we are doing in the United States is creating a huge class of desperate people who have learned to survive in a brutal system and who have nothing to loose. We create criminals.
The recidivism rate is so the PIC, prison industrial complex, will have repeat business.
That's certainly part of it. Under the state-run prison system, prisoners were an expense (liabilies). Within the ever-expanding private prison system, they are assets.
Thanks for adding those points, George. I only had a limited amount of time to surf the net to find the articles that I did find yesterday, and I didn't want my post to get any longer than it is, since most people won't read a very long comment anyway. That's one of the problems with this type of medium. There may still be other reasons that we haven't thought of, but this should be a good start:-)
George,
Are you forgetting about racism? The US prison population is by far the largest in the world (not per-capita, in absolute numbers). The prisons are overwhelmingly filled with black people (and increasingly Latinos), even though they are only 12% of the population, often for for nonviolent drug crimes for which white people rarely go to prison for; even though, crime rates for drug crimes are no higher for black people than white people.
This prison system constitutes a great war on the poor, one that will only get far worse if Ron Paul is president. but I suspect that most "leftists for Ron Paul (LFRP) are members of the comfortable bourgeois and only worry about these "constitutional liberty" issues. While they certainly are of concern, thy are hardly on the scale of the already-existing war on poor-and black peoples liberty.
George A. Markley -- Excellent points! I also agree with others who have commented on your original comment.
The oppressors/ overlords totally control the msm; the sources of daily brainwashing for most amerikans. Anyone still believing that the idiot box or any rags like NYT has the truth, continues to live in the 52nd state, denial ! Ah, israel is the 51st.
At one point, it is said that Cuba had the largest per capita prison population in the world. Such figures are notoriously true in Communist countries who operate the reverse of other totalitarian regimes. For example, here in the US participating in a frown upon activity will land you in jail while the opposite is true of Communist regimes, it is not participating in state-sponsored activities that will land you in the slammer. If you refer to the latest fiasco in North Korea, you'll see it. It is reported that those who didn't cry 'sincerely' enough at their dictator's funeral will be arrested and interned in work camps. Things like that are typical of Communist regimes.
AmericansAnonymous1 -- Well stated comment. Worth saving in my computer.
What is your take on the reports that crime rates in the U.S. are going down? Also, you don't mention the huge disparity in the U.S. in rate of incarceration and length of sentence based upon racial/ethnic group membership. If we could disregard the Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans embroiled in the criminal justice system, would we still have a "police state"?
The only quibble I have with this article is that I think the headline should be "Top 10 Reasons the US is No Longer the Land of the Free".
On the other hand, perhaps Turley is planning a series-- or "franchise", to use the blockbuster movie term-- and we can look forward to... er, will be treated to... er, will be edified by sequels, e.g. "10 More Reasons the US is No Longer the Land of the Free", followed by "Still 10 MORE Reasons the US is No Longer the Land of the Free", etc.
And speaking of movies, perhaps Michael Moore and George Lucas can collaborate on the film version.
sounds reasonable.
somebody should inform the folks at Freedom House, where the US is number one in freedom!
Freedom House claims no such thing, the US is tied for number 1, with a host of other nations. OTH I agree with the author of this piece. Americans seldom compare themselves and their "situation" to other nations. This is understandable as ever since birth Americans are told their "freedom" is unmatched anywhere else in the world. Guess what....that would be an incorrect statement.
P.S. You should also know Freedom House gets a huge chunk of its funding from the U.S. government.
Dont forget that religionists have hijacked secularism, replacing common sense and decency with "god's will".
Now that American hegemony in the world is coming to a close it is of course prudent to prepare for the domestic blow back. The emergence of Class antagonisms on a growing scale in the USA is just the latest public event demonstrating the end of the old American dream. Clearly many are afraid that the new American dream will be indistinguishable from a nightmare. To soon to say.
Not too soon to say--the nightmare is already here for a growing number of Americans. It's been quite awhile since I heard anyone on the streets talking about an American dream. The only place one can hear anything like that is in the deluded ravings of idiot teabagers.
Welcome to third world America!
"At what point does the reduction of individual rights in our country change how we define ourselves?"
....Jonahtan Turley: Why have you and many others who are considered "constitutional experts" decided to take the cowards way out? Define ourselves? Haven't most of us already defined ourselves and our beliefs through the wording of The United States Constitution? Personally, I don't really give a shite what Bush's or Obama's Department of Justice have to say about constitutional interpretations. It's fairly obvious to anyone with an IQ above 75 that the Department of Justice is willing to bastardize its original intent.
.....I think a better question to ask would be: "At what point does the shredding of the United States Constitution become an act of tyranny?" The Bill of Rights has been clearly defined, yet you and other "so-called" constitutional experts continue to dance around the blatant destruction of this document.
Or treason on high.
Obviously us indigenous people of this continent never felt free, our position is that we are still in the midst of genocide. We have been in the prison and have been part of the practice or proving ground for the police state you see now. Welcome into the largest prison cell on earth. the proverbial "belly of the beast".
aho.
It almost never really was. I'm halfway through a book called "Manufacturing Hysteria: A History of Scapegoating, Surveillance, and Secrecy in Modern America" by Jay Feldman. Noticed the interesting title in a bookstore and picked it up. I'm only halfway through, up to the first half of the FDR administration and into the wave of anti-Mexican immigrant sentiment and actions that happened in California before even I was born. The whole book sounds like now, only the forces of the establishment were more "out" about what they were doing back then (and have more tools available to repress now than they then did). Accounts of the Woodrow Wilson administration -- the "Red Scare" and the fear of organized anarchists (a contradiction in terms if there ever was one) sounded very much like today. The words "anarchist" and "communist" back then served the same purpose "terrorist" or "Islamoterrorist" do today, used in almost identical ways to justify the disregard of supposed legal protections. The ideals that United States fans cite, those treasured rights and freedoms, were never really believed in by those in power and have always been easily set aside when the government/business complex decided to go after people who they thought might be some kind of threat to them despite complete lack of any evidence or logic.
The country isn't changing into some kind of new fascist state, it's longstanding disorder is getting worse, metastasizing, going terminal.
Turley sez (#4): "The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens’ finances, communications and associations."
***
Obama actually broadcast this one while running for office in 2008 (the FISA vote). That was what finally knocked me off the fence in consideration of the guy for my 'vote'.
"The Land of the Free" reminds me of "Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose."
Those with nothing left have nothing to fear.
We are all wearing mind-forged manacles--as is Mr. Obama. The oft-repeated phrase, "his hands are tied," grants him and ourselves an immunity from accepting the responsibility to stand up and speak out. Silence is betrayal. Secrecy is for the cowardly.
Funny how his hands become untied when he wants to invade another country.