Skip to main content

At some point a sideshow to a story becomes so painfully obvious that it becomes the story, and this now should be: Why is the media taking such pains to knowingly and falsely claim that the new power of the military to detain and imprison people without charge or trial, for life, does not include US citizens?  We know what happened.  The Bill of Rights has been overturned.  And enough has been written on the deceptive language first warned of by Congressman Justin Amash, when he told The Grand Rapids Press that the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was “carefully crafted to mislead the public,” for newspaper editors to know better.

The AP reported this Wednesday when the House passed the final House-Senate Conference Committee version of the NDAA:

Specifically, the bill would require that the military take custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates and who is involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. There is an exemption for U.S. citizens.

As has been pointed out repeatedly by civil libertarians, the cunning language is technically correct, because "require" is different than "allow," but although the bill does not "require" the executive branch to place American citizens in military detention without charge or trial for life, it does indeed "allow" it.

Although Sections 1031 and 1032 were renumbered 1021 and 1022 in the Conference Committee (makes it harder to Google) the substance is still intact.  The US military can bust down your door at any time, given the proper go ahead by the executive branch, take you away, never charge you with a crime, never give you a trial, and lock you up, torture you, or even kill you.  There is a bit of new razzle-dazzle in the new Section 1021 language now stating:

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."

The problem is that "existing law," as the traitor occupying the senate seat for the Great State of South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, reiterated, is the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court ruling in Padilla v. Rumsfeld, which temporarily upheld Bush's authority to hold American citizen Jose Padilla without charge or trial, as an "enemy combatant," even though he was arrested on US soil with the full rights of an American-born citizen.  Judge Michael Luttig in that decision fully expected the question to go before the Supreme Court, before Bush pulled a fast one and said suddenly that Padilla could have a civilian trial after being held in isolation and tortured for 3 1/2 years.  That made Luttig go ballistic.  Now he was the last guy to have overturned the Bill of Rights.

In a Washington Post report "Judge Luttig Slams Bush Administration in Padilla Case" the Post (reposted in the Legal Reader)said:

     

 The appeals court opinion reflected a tone of anger that is rare for a federal court addressing the United States government, particularly in a matter of presidential authority.

A Stanford Law School website notes:

Luttig said the government's actions created the appearance "that the government may be attempting to avoid" Supreme Court review in a matter of "especial national importance."

So bottom line, yes, this still means you.

Stephen Lendman at OpEdNews.com points out a number of other articles that are part of the media disinformation campaign, in "Obama Approves Draconian Police State Law."  A Washington Post editorial said that the final bill passed:

"no longer contain[s] some of the most odious measures contained in earlier drafts. Those would have required military detention for both foreign nationals and U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism activities....The new approach is designed to limit military detention to foreign al-Qaeda operatives..."

Again, the new bill doesn't require the military detention of Americans, but absolutely allows it.  This is a language play by lawyers who think they are much smarter than you are, akin to the scene in the Pink Panther:

Peter Sellers: Does your dog bite?
Concierge: No
Peter Sellers, after petting dog and getting bitten: I thought you said your dog does not bite!
Concierge: That is not my dog.

The most "odious measures" are still in this bill.  It still bites.

The Post also invoked the disingenuous "require" versus "allow" spin when it reported after the House approved of the Conference Committee compromise bill:

The White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the measure, arguing that it would have required the military, rather than civilian law enforcement, to detain terrorism suspects apprehended on American soil.

But Obama's problem wasn't military involvement in American arrests.  It was that the law would have required it for "suspects" he had deemed "associated" with terrorism, rather than leaving it to the president's discretion.

What is becoming more worrisome than what Anonymous calls this "outright declaration of WAR against the American People," is the fact that the Congress, the president, and their media minions are working so hard to conceal it. If you need to overthrow the Constitution in order to fight terrorists, why not just say so? Why the guilty, criminal frame of mind? Why the contortions of language which make it seem that the bill does everything but what it actually does?

In a NY Times Op-Ed two retired four-star marine generals(Charles Krulak and Joseph Hoar) write:

One provision would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past.

And this is only the print media.  The broadcast media is still acting as if the sudden transition to martial law never happened (when the military can arrest anyone in the middle of the night on Executive Branch orders, it is martial law.)

The kicker is the military doesn't even want this new job.  They are built for fighting and winning wars abroad.  Krulak and Hoar write:

It would force on the military responsibilities it hasn’t sought. This would violate not only the spirit of the post-Reconstruction act limiting the use of the armed forces for domestic law enforcement but also our trust with service members, who enlist believing that they will never be asked to turn their weapons on fellow Americans.

Thomas Jefferson said:

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."

By violating their Oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution, these senators and congressmen have made themselves "domestic enemies" of the Constitution. This is Day One of the Overthrow, which we shall fight, and Day One of the Media Silence.  As Anonymous says, war has been declared on the American people.  It is appropriate to always end with the list of those who betrayed us December 15, Bill of Rights Day, a day of infamy.   These are the names, and their names are Treason.  And this includes Obama who signed it.

The Treasonous 383
SENATE: YEAs ---86

Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Rubio (R-FL)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Vitter (R-LA)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
Moran (R-KS)

HOUSE: AYES 283 --

Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Buerkle
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chandler
Cicilline
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
    Garamendi
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Hoyer
Hultgren
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Sánchez, Linda T.
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Visclosky
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

Abstain:
Bachmann
Coble
Diaz-Balart
Filner
Giffords
Gutierrez
Johnson, E. B.
LaTourette
Lynch
Myrick
Paul
Pitts
Sanchez, Loretta
Young (FL)

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't think you're giving the media enough... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JonBarleycorn

    credit. The news itself that indefinite detention of citizens is now codified in law is incredibly unnerving. Terrifying, in fact. If you're not careful, you might end up terrorizing people!

    And, well, we know what happens when someone beside our government tries to terrorize Americans.

  •  We try to be fact-based around here (0+ / 0-)
    ...The US military can bust down your door at any time, given the proper go ahead by the executive branch, take you away, never charge you with a crime, never give you a trial, and lock you up, torture you, or even kill you...

    This is so not true.

    When U.S. citizens aren't secreted away to be tortured, that will further diminish the credibility of thus who claim to care about civil liberties.

    I do like that the bill allows same-sex couples to be married by a willing chaplain. For those who care about civil liberties, that is good news and a step in the right direction.

    "There is nothing more dreadful than the habit of doubt. Doubt separates people. It is a poison that disintegrates friendships and breaks up pleasant relations. It is a thorn that irritates and hurts; it is a sword that kills.".. Buddha

    by sebastianguy99 on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 03:37:12 PM PST

  •  They're lying because you can't close this... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    limpidglass

    story otherwise. It's over. They're done reporting on it. There's an election in 320+ days. No time to focus on crap like "jury trials".

    They weren't gonna go getting everyone riled up, knowing the story was about to get significantly harder to report.

  •  wow (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    limpidglass, Russgirl

    a thoughtful, well written, well sourced diary on the subject,  thank God, well done sir, well done

    Bad is never good until worse happens

    by dark daze on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 04:32:32 PM PST

  •  most people won't grasp what the new law allows (3+ / 0-)

    until the government starts using it domestically on a wide scale.

    Until then, people will continue to focus on narrowly legalistic arguments about technicalities that supposedly prevent the law from being applied to US citizens.

    It's natural to want to deny how bad things are until the reality becomes to blatant to ignore any longer, but by then, it may be too late.

    Given that this administration, like its predecessor, has aggressively advocated allowing the executive the broadest possible power and freedom in interpreting and carrying out the laws, it is not likely that the confused and muddled "safeguards" in the bill will constrain this administration (or its successors) in practice.

    Congress didn't pass this law randomly or because it was good for their health. The law was made to be used, and used it will be--soon.

    The reason so many people are insisting that this bill isn't so bad is because the president's signing it into law is incompatible with the belief in his fundamental goodness.

    But as I said, either he will use this law or his successors will. It's not made to sit idly there.

    "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

    by limpidglass on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 04:54:22 PM PST

    •  I think many people's belief in (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      limpidglass, MrBigDaddy

      his "fundamental goodness" was shattered when it was revealed that he himself asked for Americans to be included among those who can be arrested, by a CSPAN viewer who was paying close attention to Levin and put it on youtube.  Not one in a million people would know about it otherwise.  This is why we still have a chance to save the republic if we work at it.

      CENK ON FIRE..must watch, the best I've seen him...)

  •  Steve Benen did a piece on this today, and he (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rich in PA, virginislandsguy

    says you are incorrect. He doesn't say detention of American citizens could not happen, just that such detention could not be based on this bill. Of course, President Obama cannot control future presidents. That's our job.

    I trust Steve's judgment.

    “In Texas, we do not hold high expectations for the [governor's] office; it's mostly been occupied by crooks, dorks and the comatose. Molly Ivins

    by glorificus on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 07:19:03 PM PST

    •  thats a false arguement (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rlochow

      based on this bill alone?  no of course not, but this bill addresses a lot of previous stuff, its the previous stuff that is the problem.  

      Im so sick of lies like this. " based on this bill" is bullshit, Based on this bill coupled with previous precedent is what we are addressing. Its all part of a bigger picture.

      Bad is never good until worse happens

      by dark daze on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 08:06:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Benen didn't say he thought it was a good (0+ / 0-)

        bill. I believe he said the opposite. And if all this shit bothers you, do not support the Republicans, either directly or by tearing down the other party. It's not that hard to understand.

        “In Texas, we do not hold high expectations for the [governor's] office; it's mostly been occupied by crooks, dorks and the comatose. Molly Ivins

        by glorificus on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 09:00:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Nothing says "believe my advocacy"... (2+ / 0-)

    ...like the wholesale designation of our elected representatives as traitors.

    But nobody's buying flowers from the flower lady.

    by Rich in PA on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 07:43:11 PM PST

  •  The diary wanders far from the topic announced (0+ / 0-)

    by its title.  None of what Senator Graham, any other Member of Congress who voted for the bill, or the President has done concerning the bill in any way meets the Constitution's definition of treason.   So far as accusing the media of lying, in the absence of evidence of intent not to tell the truth, it's wiser to suspect or accuse the media of mere incompetence.  

  •  Who says that Obama (0+ / 0-)

    has never been flip-flopping? In this NDAA case, it seems that Human Right Watch is not exaggerating when it says that  the President will go down in history not in a good way, exactly because of that.

    In the Truthdig.com article,  it was clear that "... President Obama reneged on his veto threat and the bill sailed through the House with 65 percent of its members voting in favor of the NDAA with the detainee provisions intact..."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site