Home US & World News NEWS & COMMENT: Obama signs law nullifying Bill of Rights

NEWS & COMMENT: Obama signs law nullifying Bill of Rights

E-mail Print

December 31, 2011, must be regarded as one of the darkest days in the history of the American Republic.  --  On that day the president of the United States signed into law a bill that nullifies the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments of the Bill of Rights, as well as Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution.[1]  --  President Barack Obama attached a signing statement (full text below) that made the specious argument that NDAA 2012 "solely codifies established authorities."[2]  --  He said he does not "agree with everything" in the law and added and promised that "my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.  Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation.  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."  --  COMMENT:  Unfortunately, these words have no legal value and no legal force whatsoever.  --  "Signing statements" are not authorized by any provision in the Constitution or any federal statue or common-law principle.  --  In a statement, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union said he was "incredibly disappointed" in Barack Obama and lamented the "blight on his legacy" that this act represents.  --  He promised that the ACLU would "fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally."[3]  --  The president's signing statement adds insult to injury by affirming his belief that the Bill of Rights applies only at his whim.  --  It never names the Bill of Rights, referring only to "our most important traditions and values."  --  Only "traditions and values" now limit executive power in the United States, in Obama's view.  --  With NDAA 2012 the imperial presidency comes to full fruition.  --  BACKGROUND:  For the origins of this bill, see here.  --  Commentators have said that the news law "creates a presidential dictatorship"; allows "the military to arrest people on U.S. soil and hold them without trial"; "literally legaliz[es] martial law"; and is "the most direct assault so far on the concept found in the Declaration of Independence that humans are endowed with certain inalienable rights." --  Barack Obama, whose favorite metaphor is "moving America forward," has just moved America backward in a way unimaginable for the majority of those who voted for him....


1.

OBAMA SIGNS NDAA BILL WITH SIGNING STATEMENT CLARIFYING INDEFINITE DETENTION PROVISIONS

by Jonathan Moorman

...ology
December 31, 2011

http://www.ology.com/politics/obama-signs-ndaa-bill-signing-statement-clarifying-indefinite-detention-provisions/12312011

After a long battle over one section of the latest National Defense Authorization Act, President Obama signed the bill into law today -- but with a signing statement.  The statement, which can be read in full here, clarifies why Obama signed the bill and how the controversial provisions on indefinite detention will be treated.  Although Obama says in the statement that he does not agree with the entire bill, passing it is necessary to maintain the operation of our military.  He also added that the indefinite detention provision (section 1021) just codifies how our military currently operates rather than changing anything, and that "my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens."

While the indefinite detention provisions included in this act do echo similar measures included in the 2001 AUMF, many civil liberties groups were concerned that this section could be grounds for a more expansive interpretation of those powers that could allow for arrests of U.S. citizens without a trial. While the signing statement is not technically legally binding, it does give intent for how the section should be interpreted by future courts, and in all likelihood will ensure that section 1021 only applies to enemy combatants. It's not perfect, but it is a lot more efficient than vetoing the bill and restarting the legislative process.

The signing statement and its assurance that the Obama Administration will not apply section 1021 to U.S. Citizens may do very little to assuage the fears of civil libertarians who fear that this law sets a dangerous precedent for future administrations. While the President did successfully campaign to have some of the more aggressive detention provisions removed (such as a military custody requirement for U.S. citizens suspected of terror), the continued existence of this provision has allowed the story to survive.

2.

Breaking

OBAMA SIGNS DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL

By Jedd Legum

Think Progress
December 31, 2011

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/12/31/396018/breaking-obama-signs-defense-authorization-bill/


This afternoon, Obama signed the controversial Defense authorization bill, despite his reservations about provisions related to the treatment of terrorism suspects.  The *National Journal* reports:  "President Obama signed on Saturday the defense authorization bill, formally ending weeks of heated debate in Congress and intense lobbying by the administration to strip controversial provisions requiring the transfer of some terror suspects to military custody."

“I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists,” Obama said in a statement accompanying his signature.

The AP has more from the signing statement:  “My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.”

Full text of the signing statement below:

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT ON H.R. 1540


http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540


Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.”  I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed.  In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

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.  Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation, and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable.  Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe.  My Administration has consistently opposed such measures.  Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people.  Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note).  This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary.  The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then.  Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities.  First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.”  Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “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.”  My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF.  Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.  Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation.  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.

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.”  This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States.  The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa’ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate.  I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat.  While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security.  Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States.  As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system.  Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost.  I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention.  I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law.  And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.

Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch’s processes for reviewing the status of detainees.  Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.

Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch.  Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose.  I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests.  For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court.  Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation.  Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security.  Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.

Section 1028 modifies but fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch’s authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country.  This hinders the executive’s ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and like section 1027, would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.  The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers.  In the event that the statutory restrictions in sections 1027 and 1028 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict.

Section 1029 requires that the Attorney General consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense prior to filing criminal charges against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals.  I sign this based on the understanding that apart from detainees held by the military outside of the United States under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the provision applies only to those individuals who have been determined to be covered persons under section 1022 before the Justice Department files charges or seeks an indictment.  Notwithstanding that limitation, this provision represents an intrusion into the functions and prerogatives of the Department of Justice and offends the longstanding legal tradition that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions should be vested with the Attorney General free from outside interference.  Moreover, section 1029 could impede flexibility and hinder exigent operational judgments in a manner that damages our security.  My Administration will interpret and implement section 1029 in a manner that preserves the operational flexibility of our counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, limits delays in the investigative process, ensures that critical executive branch functions are not inhibited, and preserves the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice.

Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers.  Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia.  Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided.  While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications.  Other sections pose similar problems.  Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments.  Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.

My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning.  My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.

BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE, December 31, 2011.

3.

PRESIDENT OBAMA SIGNS INDEFINITE DETENTION BILL INTO LAW


American Civil Liberties Union
December 31, 2011

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-bill-law


WASHINGTON -- President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law today.  The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision.  While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use the authorities granted by the NDAA, and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations.  The White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA, but reversed course shortly before Congress voted on the final bill.

“President Obama's action today 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,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director.  “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.  The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.”

Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again.  The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA.  In addition, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.

“We are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention authority in court,” said Romero.  “Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today.  Thankfully, we have three branches of government, and the final word belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority.  But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAA’s detention authority.”

The bill also contains provisions making it difficult to transfer suspects out of military detention, which prompted FBI Director Robert Mueller to testify that it could jeopardize criminal investigations.  It also restricts the transfers of cleared detainees from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to foreign countries for resettlement or repatriation, making it more difficult to close Guantanamo, as President Obama pledged to do in one of his first acts in office.

 

Last Updated on Sunday, 01 January 2012 19:55  

Upcoming

2014 PEACE PICNIC! -- Sun., Aug. 31, 2pm-dusk @ Gig Harbor viewpoint on 5 Mile Drive in Point Defiance Park. -- Potluck; UFPPC provides charcoal fire, hot dogs, & hamburgers (meat or veg). -- Games (bring some!), Peaceful Pie Contest w/ ribbons to winners. -- Free door prizes and raffle tickets sold for prizes. -- See you there!

Search