Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
2012's Civil Liberties Apocalypse Has Already Happened
In case you missed it, President Barack Obama has signed a death knell for the Bill of Rights. It's a hell of a way to begin a year many believe will mark the end of the world. 
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) makes a mockery of our basic civil liberties. It shreds the intent of the Founders to establish a nation where essential rights are protected. It puts us all at risk for arbitrary, indefinite incarceration with no real rights to recourse.
The Act authorizes a $626 billion dollar defense budget (which does not include the CIA, special ops, various black box items, etc). Obama's signing statement says it does address counterterrorism at home and abroad as well as Defense Department modernization, health care costs and more.
But it also includes Sections 1021 and 1022, bitterly opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch, among many others. The New York Times urged Obama to veto the bill because of them. The UK-based Guardian said NDAA 2012 allows allows for indefinite detention of US citizens "without trial [of] American terrorism subjects arrested on U.S. soil, who could then be shipped to Guantanamo Bay." The Kansas City Star was equally blunt, stating that the NDAA is "trampling the bill of rights in defense's name."
Section 1021 reasserts the President's authority to use the military to detain any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners." It also includes the military's power to detain anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies under the law of war. Despite widespread public pressure, Obama did not veto the bill. In his signing statement he said: "I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists."
Citing the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, the NDAA states that those detained may be detained "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]." The NDAA also allows trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin," or transfer to "any other foreign country or any other foreign entity." This last practice is known as "rendition."
It's been been widely documented that the United States has used rendition as a way to let individuals be tortured outside of U.S. soil. "Extraordinary rendition"---used during the second Bush administration---is the kidnapping and transfer of individuals to a third country for purposes "enhanced interrogation," otherwise known as torture.
An amendment to the NDAA offered by Senator Mark Udall forbidding the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens failed by a vote of 37-61. A compromise amendment to preserve current law concerning the detention of U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens within the United States proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein passed, but only sparked more controversy. Feinstein insisted the reference to current law meant that U.S. citizens could not be indefinitely detained, while Senators Carl Levin and John McCain argued that it does allow indefinite detention. Senator Levin cited the Supreme Court as stating that: "There is no bar to this nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant."
Section 1022 of the NDAA deals with the "Requirement for military custody." Section 1022 requires that all persons arrested and detained under Section 1021, including those detained on U.S. soil whether held indefinitely or not, will be in the custody of the United States Armed Forces. Thus, Section 1022 of the NDAA 2012 clearly allows the U.S. military the option to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens.
The ACLU stated that, "The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision…[without] temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future Presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield." Civil libertarians are calling for the specific repeal of Sections 1021 and 1022, asking elected officials to come out in favor of this repeal. Civil libertarian activists are also calling on local governments to pass ordinances and statutes declaring their municipalities and states "Bill of Rights Enforcement Zones" or "Rendition-free Zones."
The ACLU believes that "the breadth of the NDAA's detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured within the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war." Sections 1021 and 1022 pose a threat to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil who may be seized and held indefinitely because of so-called "belligerent acts."
For a long while we have been hearing apocalyptic predictions about the end of the world through solar flares, natural disasters, invasions from outer space and the like. All that is believed to be slated for December, 2012.
But what most of the nation doesn't realize is that the end of our basic civil liberties, in place since the December, 1791, ratification of the Bill of Rights, has already taken place.
44 Comments so far
Show All15 Democrat Senators voted against the Udall Amendment. So we can rightfully blame this whole Bill of Rights Killer on the Dims. Only 1 Republican voted for the Amendment, so you can see it was a partisan vote.
Any Democrat/Obama apologists out there care to disagree with me or school me on how I have to vote for the "lesser of 2 evils" next November?
Vote 3rd Party. Vote for Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party.
The bill not only enables shipping Americans detained without due process to be sent to Guantanamo, they can be sent to contract gulags in Eastern Europe and other parts of the world where Guantanamo detainees have been sent during the past decade.
That the bill existed in any form is the crime. That any help would have been offered by the Udall amendment is ridiculous. That is, unless you think that indefinite detention of people OTHER than Amerkns is acceptable.
The NAZI's declared that its "enemy combatants"were subject to the Geneva Convention and accorded the rights of POW's to those designated as "enemy combatants" under the rules of the Convention. It's official now the USG has achieved its goal which is to be more NAZI than the NAZI'S. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
If you think NDAA is bad...here is followup
Bill introduced to allow US government to strip Americans of their citizenship
A new bill was introduced to the US Congress by Republication Representative Charles Dent of Pennsylvania that would allow the United States government to strip US citizens of their citizenship for "engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States." A hostile action against the United States is defined as "any conflict subject to the laws of war."
The Enemy Expatriation Act, H.R. 3166, if passed, would allow the government to strip an American of his or her citizenship without needing to formally charge the individual or to bring the suspected individual before a court of law.
This bill follows the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which was signed into law on New Year's Eve by President Obama. The NDAA granted the US government the ability to indefinitely detain individuals that were deemed to pose a terrorist threat to the United States without having to charge them or grant them access to the court system. However, it is unclear whether or not US citizens would be impacted by the NDAA, as the US Constitution guarantees Americans due process of law.
If the Enemy Expatriation Act is passed, it is feared that the government could first strip an American of his or her citizenship and thus removal constitutional protections that may have protected Americans from the NDAA detention clauses.
In a YouTube video released by Representative Charles Dent, Dent states that the Enemy Expatriation Act only modifies existing statutes found constitutional by the US Supreme Court.
The current statue states that an individual proven to have engaged in hostilities against the United States on behalf of an armed force of a foreign state may be stripped of their citizenship.
A copy of the Enemy Expatriation Act may be viewed online here.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3166/text
The bill was sponsored by Senator Joseph Lieberman and Representative Charles Dent. Lieberman proposed an identical version in the US Senate.
What "is UNCLEAR whether US citizens would be impacted by the NDAA, as the US Constitution guarantees Americans due process of law" ?
Obama, being the constitutional law expert that he is, has proven to be more adept at abusing the US Constitution than any of his 43 predeecessors in the White House was.
The Constitution is inclusive, all persons under US law are included in the due process provision, not just USAn's.
Let's start with the dumb Dem author Levin from Michigan ,,who's supporters are huge Israeli supporters...as the instigator of the g d thing. What else do we really know? Harvey and Bob, thank you. This is a no-brainer...throw out all the sob's that voted or authored this fascist Nazi bullsht crap. Nazi...how ironic, Carl.
What I really see happening is a back door to complete and total marshall law and we citizens are just shit on their black boots.
It's not Marshall Law,
That's MARTIAL(military) law, numbnuts.
It's Dirty Business in any case...
Just a one-liner for the greying hippies amongst us...
Obama's response to the September 17, 2011 debut of OWS was swift and unequivocal. Within 105 days Obama 1) signed three additional NAFTAs into law to assure that the unemployed OWS participants never get a job, and 2) signed the NDAA to enable the unlimited detention of and denial of due process for OWS participants.
"numbnuts"
that's not very nice Mr. Ho'.
perhaps Mr. Pig was referring to Law from the Hall of Mars.
I just don't understand why a spelling correction has to feature an insult. This particular term does get consistently misspelled so the correction is welcome, but the hostility is not.
How long will it be before those involved in Peace organizations are said to be aiding the enemy? How long before those who oppose nuclear power or oil rigs plundering the nation's coastal regions, equated with terrorists for challenging the nation's national security, in its thirst for endless supplies of fossil fuel?
I will say that Ron Paul did make noise about this inanity, and without that, how many Americans would have ANY clue whatsoever, as to the liberties signed AWAY as the Obomination's New Year gift to U.S. citizens?
Because the current generation of arrogant politicians has:
1. Signed away our inherited liberties
2. Signed away our nation's bank account to the very bankers that ran the global economy *(apart from South America) to the ground
3. Signed off on the need to invest in vital infrastructure in anticipation of global warming/climate chaos
4. Signed onto wars based on FIXED evidence
They are the ones guilty of treason; and as another poster recently related, it would prove quite the karmic blowback if these persons of power were held to the same disastrous standards to which they have now consigned all U.S. citizens.
What goes around eventually does come (back) around!
how's "Love Your Enemies" for aiding and abetting?
I heard that Greenpeace, Animal Rights groups including PETA, some feminist organisation, and other political groups had been classed as 'terrorists' in the US in the decade.
Just googled it and found this: http://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/waronterrorism/terrorism05.htm
An environmental activist, opposing fracking for example, could potentially be arrested and imprisoned without trial. Scarey!
Add individuals growing flowers, produce and fruits on your own property being illegal. This was proposed legislation by a Vermont Congressman, making it illegal to grow your own food on your own habitat.Oh, SR what is Pluto's designation, I'm just curious?
No can do! "We can't go for that" as Hall and Oats would put it so aptly.
Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
hide under my bed with the terrorist.
Contract with America
THE American People signed a contract in 1787. An agreement between the Governed and the Government. It is called the Constitution of the United States. The first ten amendments to that constitution is known as the Bill of Rights. As Justice Hugo Black stated, “It is my belief that there are absolutes in our Bill of Rights, and that they were put there on purpose by men who knew what words meant and meant their prohibitions to be ‘absolutes.’”
Think about it. Without the First Amendment, newspapers could only print the “party line” or be suppressed. Books and plays would be censored or banned. We might have to attend the State Authorized Religion, or be forbidden to attend any other form of worship, or any worship at all. We could even have a church telling us how to live, backed up with government force! We would have no right of public assembly or protest, nor could we petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Without the Second Amendment, we would be a completely disarmed populace, at the mercy of government troops or security forces.
Without the Third Amendment, the government could quarter troops in your home without your consent.
Without the Fourth Amendment, the government’s security force or military could search your home at will, without a warrant, confiscate your papers and property, monitor your communications and phone conversations without your ever knowing about it.
Without the Fifth Amendment, you could be picked up, your property confiscated, you could be held incommunicado for an indefinite time without legal counsel and could be forced to testify against yourself.
Without the Sixth Amendment, your could be held for an indefinite period, without charge, and without being told why you’re being held. Your trial, if any, could be held in secret without your being able to confront your accusers or examining any evidence, nor would you have the right to legal counsel.
Without the Seventh Amendment, in civil suits, you would not have the right of trial by jury.
Without the Eighth Amendment, there would be no limit on the amount of bail set or fines imposed, and any cruel punishment could be meted out, even death by torture.
Without the Ninth Amendment, any rights not spelled out would be forfeit to the government.
Without the Tenth Amendment, the People of the United States would have no powers reserved to themselves, it would all lie with the State.
Those rights are listed right there in the Constitution. They cannot legally be removed by Legislative or Executive fiat. They can only be removed by amending the Constitution to give up these rights.
When you think of the United States, keep that Constitution in your mind. Keep in mind those first ten amendments, which gives We the People unparalleled rights and guarantees of freedom. Freedom of thought, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from oppression, from intrusion into our private lives.
This precious document must be treasured and protected against all enemies, foreign or domestic, if we are to, indeed, live in “One Nation, under God.” The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are perhaps two of the most important documents written since the “Sermon on the Mount.” To have value, they must be read often, and kept alive.
Just look around you from time to time as you go about your daily business. Does it seem to you that the government has broken the contract?
I think we should either reaffirm the contract, or cancel the government and start over again.
That was quite a staggering blast of US Exceptionalism. The very thing, entrenched in the minds of its vast, poorly educated populace, that has enabled this dreadful legislation that officially undo's 800 years of Habeas Corpus (Guantanamo was provisional and not enshrined in law), to be passed without so much as a whimper of protest. Or even headline news! I mean, America is the freeist country in the world, right, so what's anyone getting so upset about? And you seem to believe it, too.
think of the potential savings to be made by shutting down the courts!
this could be added to the "$626 billion dollar(sic) defense budget".
or it could supplement the Heck-of-a-job Hopeland Security Scam.
In the '70's the US sponsored repressive, authoritarian measures which silenced public opinion in Brazil and other nations. The marks of the US government's "foreign policy" (read: Corporate Advancement and Personal Profit Policy) were everywhere. We (meaning, the U.S. represented by our not very "elected" government), were the sponsors of Inhumanity, Incorporated.
So, now, some 40 years later, we are allowing the beneficiaries of those folks who so wanted to Control Humanity back then, to do the same thing HERE, now that the chickens have finally come home to roost. What has been personally sickening for me, is that I first imagined -- and then OBSERVED -- it coming our way, albeit in relatively slow motion.
The Right-Wing "Think Tanks" (what a misnomer!) planned the destruction of Labor and other possible popular forces, including a full-scale co-opting of what was left of the Democratic Party. They moved the industrial economy overseas, lowered wages, reduced or eliminated benefits, encouraged the "illegal" immigrants to come here & take minimal-wage jobs, privatized the military and prisons, concentrated the Media in a few hands, ... and now THIS: straight up torture, imprisonment, and censorship. USA 2012. Hey, but we got a black president, so it's ok.
Hell, they've had DECADES to practice for this scenario -- and a Public ever-less-engaged and more out-for-themselves. The "Me" Generation and associated movements were part of this, willing or not. Much of America Bought In, and we were Sold Out.
Selfish and myopic US (like "we") are to blame.
Your post is rather schizophrenic. You readily state all the moves made by secretive, powerful elites but then turn it around to another "WE are to blame." How many people have, up until recently, been anywhere near the point where they could connect what U.S. corporations did in places like South America (code name: Disaster Capitalism) and what's come home, perfected, to inflict the Homeland with the same sorts of economic, judicial, and social pain?
IF there is a 1% that purchases the politicians that make the laws; and if this ilk owns media and produces policy through relentless propaganda (relayed 24/7 through the MSM), and given that elections are a very controlled, elite game... how is it that with all those influences you conclude that we, the 99% are to blame?
Things were not bad in the U.S. for most people (minorities excepted) until relatively recently. As jobs were shipped overseas, and costs for food, homes, and healthcare exponentially increased with wages NOT catching up... more and more families saw both parents working. Precious little time was left for political activism. And it was set up that way.
Also, when things happen on a slow level under the radar, they often aren't noticed until the wagons start circling nearby. In other words, think frogs in slowly boiling water. But it really puts those corrupt politicians, lobbyists, corporations, weapons traders, think tanks, PR frauds, hedge fund jockeys, and media sell-outs OFF the hook.. if you can make it about all those selfish, myopic Americans! The same ones who haven't been privy to honest news reporting in decades.
siouxrose,
Who is letting whom off the hook?
It's popular now to use the 1% - 99% metaphor (and I think it's great that the Occupy movement has made this sense of class consciousness acceptable conversation again), but that does not excuse us from being aware to some degree of DECADES of history with a pre-emptive shrug: "Ohh, we didn't KNOW about that!" That is hardly the point of becoming more aware of class distinctions: that one side is nasty, and the other is innocent.
The American people swallowed, largely passively, the moving of our industry overseas. It swallowed the US involvement in the coup in Brazil in 1964. It swallowed US financial and military support of authoritarian, murderous regimes in Argentina, Uruguay, and elswhere. It swallowed the overthrow of Allende. It swallowed the invasions of Grenada and Panama. Those events were not exactly invisible in spite of the inadequacies of the MSM. We swallowed the bad-mouthing of unions and their dwindling significance. We accepted passively the ever-rightward movement of the Democratic Party -- again passively. Self-satisfied, full of "personal goals," middle class America wouldn't see what was happening at home or abroad.
The oligarchy back then surely pulled lots of strings, but it wasn't as bad as today. The people to a large degree allowed someone like Reagan to twist the national Narrative to very conservative and intolerant positions, even though it reduced the voice of the people, hurt workers, and ushered in an unprecedented era of corporate invasion of government (read: people's) entities.
What? Because a courageous smattering of people today called Occupy have the audacity and courage to go into the streets and point out the obvious of a long-existing Power Relationship between Those in Charge, and Those Who Are Not, that we all are absolved from having allowed that to happen? Seriously.
I suppose the German people were oblivious to the rise of Hitler, too, and thus, blameless. After all, they were duped.
When I suggested that "we" are to blame, I mean we have allowed the takeover of our media, our education, our healthcare insurance, our elections, our very government, with very little critical thought or voice because it was convenient to believe that America was nearly always right. How many still defend the "official" version of 911 -- the Grandaddy of all "conspiracy theories". The brief Vietnam-era revolt proves it didn't have to be accepted wo easily.
Some of us (and probably including you, too Siouxrose, judging from past postings), tried, largely in vain, to point out what was going on, as it was happening -- witness the 2000 election for example -- but were rebuked by folks who expected little, saw less, and didn't want to be bothered. The 2000 election (& others) was stolen outright. Very few were outraged Even less fought back.
Today we watch passively as the Republican freak show of candidates is seriously broadcast as news, and the public is not outraged? Sure let's blame those who usurped power, but also be aware of who let them do so with barely a whimper. It does not get us, as a people, off the hook.
Fair explanation, Alan. The thing is WE are an occupied land. Do you think the pen, in the hands of one unpublished writer, is mightier than a controlled media? Do you think 10,000 protesters are a problem for the U.S. police/military arsenal? You make it seem like those who didn't understand or recognize the covert nature of all these insidious events and initiatives are somehow AS responsible as the perpetrators. I do NOT agree. The woman raped is not equivalent to the rapist!
Often I've posted my own little numbered hierarchies, a crude attempt at percentages of culpability and such.
It's like the elections today, Alan. 9 times out of 10 (and statistics back this up), $ buys the result. So where does that put those without mega funds?
The problems are enormous, deeply entrenched, and systemic. I sure hope OWS helps to undermine the current paradigm. It has several assets working with it:
1. Time itself. For time is endowed with purpose, and hidden within it are the rhythm structures that give rise to discernible cycles. We are on the cusp of one such vast Transition phase now.
2. Millions of people all over the world who have gotten a sickening taste of how Disaster Capitalism operates now realize their governments serve the bankers, not them.
3. Mother Nature: The paroxysms of overkill will continue and in their wake interrupt business (including the War Business) as usual.
I realize that some citizens are distracted (the fact that wages have not kept up with costs of living being a factor), and that some citizens are ignorant as to what governments do in their name (operatives like "Fox News" heavily factor in here), and that others genuinely care about nothing outside of their own comfort zone (I hold them in contempt). And still others have been falsely brainwashed by fundamentalist religions to think those who suffer deserve to suffer and they need not think much about their plight.
People are not all of the same mind, level of consciousness, or level of complicity. The guy who rides a bike and doesn't eat meat hardly compares with the idiot driving the giant Lincoln SUV and living in a 3000 square foot home, etc.
It's about distinctions! Not one broad brush stroke passing for analysis!
We're looking for a guide that says for instance how much energy the citizen needs to put forth to control federal policy. Against such acts by a Congruss, with a lower approval rating than death, we should put in a certain amount of energy to protect our solidarity with our fellow citizens, especially whitey solidarity with people of other races/cultural backgrounds.
rtdrury:
Think about putting a certain amount of energy into growing
a third political party (hopefully to become a major party).
What with the present two-party-system congress' having
an approval rating as low as it is (I heard 9%), the expended
energy needed is worth some part of any free person's time.
I understand that President Obama issued a signing statement that nullified the indefinite detainment of American citizens without due process of law. I guess my question is this: will this prevent any of us from being detained under this draconian law? It's amazing to me just how apathetic most Americans have become in the face of this horror? This is exactly what happened to Germany when Hitler took over in 1933!
Two issues:
First, when Obama was campaigning, he criticized the using of signing statements. It took Obama less than a month to use one and now he has used them 18 times.
Second, Obama's signing statement doesn't nullfity the indefinite detention of Americans without due process. In his signing statement, he gave reason why he thinks that part of the bill is doesn't pertain to US citizens, but his signing statement only states that his Administration interprets the section to not jeopardize the liberty of Americans and "his Administration" will not authorize the indefinite detention of American citizens without trial. That doesn't nullify the Act. Also ask Bradley Manning, how well the fair and speedy trial process is going. Finally, Obama's signing statement completely ignores section 1032 of the Act that addresses US citizens and only says the military isn't "required" to hold them indefinitely, leaving the door open for the military to be permitted to hold American citizens indefinitely. See Chris Hedge's lawsuit for more on this.
"'his Administration' will not authorize the indefinite detention of American citizens without trial."
0's leaving it open for subsequent admins.
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/close-guantanamo-now/6cMPlxQw - There's a "close GTMO" petition at the Whitehouse website you might want to consider signing
Politics?? Electing anyone to any position will not clean up the rot and stench. The Trash must be removed from the kitchen before edible meals can be served.
We're all terrorists now.
What's left to defend??? What's left that's worth fighting for, if necessary? The stuff that makes our society better or worth investing in has all been ripped off. No schools, no libraries, no public pools or parks, no health care, no safety net (pity one should even be necessary), no jobs, no homes, no environmental protections, no access, no freedoms, no information, no rights, no privacy...etc. What's left?
Only the people.
Indeed.
Right, redballoon, right redballoon. Those are the best questions.
But one should remember not to express disloyalty. We have always been at war with Southwest Asia; Libya has always been our friend; China has always been our enemy; Vietnam has always been our friend. Do not express disloyalty.
Ha, that sounds so "1984"! Good one, Winston!
"How many people have, up until recently, been anywhere near the point where they could connect what U.S. corporations did in places like South America". A good number of non-Americans have made this connection for a very long time. A good number of Americans have been very happy to go along with it for a very long time. In a democracy one gets the government one deserves. At least the USA has a Constitution; but so did the USSR.
"10 reasons the U.S. is no longer the land of the free"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-the-united-states-still-the-land-of-the-free/2012/01/04/gIQAvcD1wP_story.html
1. Assassination of U.S. citizens
2. Indefinite detention
3. Secret court
4. Arbitrary justice
5. Warrantless searches
6. Secret evidence
7. War crimes
8. Immunity from judicial review
9. Extraordinary renditions
10. Continual monitoring of citizens