Was President Obama right to allow indefinite detention of citizens without due process?
Posted at 5:00 AM on January 9, 2012
by Eric Ringham
(47 Comments)
Filed under: International affairs, Politics/Government, Security
Late last year, President Obama signed a defense spending bill that provides for indefinite military detention of anyone suspected of terrorism, including American citizens. The law has sparked widespread criticism from civil-liberties groups and others. Today's Question: Was President Obama right to allow indefinite detention of citizens without due process?
Comments (47)
This is simple: the NDAA language allows for a slippery slope. Because of the "war on terror," American citizens forego their Constitutional rights.
We need to question the BASIS of the argument, challenge the assumption that we can defeat "terror". It is an Orwellian concept: peace through war.
Fear is the quickest trigger in the human alert system, and BOTH political parties are using the fear trigger and the "war" to their advantage as lackeys of the military-industrial complex.
I, too, originally bought the "hope and change" rhetoric in 2008. Folks, actions speak louder than words. The President is another in a long line of emasculated puppets, and the NDAA that he signed proves a larger agenda afoot.
I will find it hard to vote for president Obama base on this issue alone. I am beyond disgusted. I thought I was part of the party that cared about people and their rights. Once again I was proven wrong. Thanks Pres. Anything that comes out or your mouth from here on out is taken with a grain of salt. Major dissappointment.
Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for freedom and you curse the process. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that these so-called indefinite detention of citizens , while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man or woman who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand at post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.
@ Brenda [12:39 PM]
Let me see.. Ah yes, it has to be the Kardashians...
Did any of you guys read Hugo's comments. More to the point, did any of you ever read the Patriot Act? And did you or did you not get on board with it, or did you look at what it said about us as a people, not to mention the long-term possibilities of it boomeranging? Honestly, the ignorance and lack of simple logic on the part of the population of this great nation is appalling.
Thank yo, Hugo, for your entry!
No.
It violates so much of the founding papers of the US.
Joanie, can you cite any sources for that information? I'd like to know what the truth is behind those assertions of yours, and whether they are based on reliable sources.
" Obama can detain citizens for ever without a trial since he often ignores the Constitution.
Is this any different than scrubbing the word Radical Islam from all government documents regarding the US "war on terror"
really? we are at war with an action and not a country or group? At this rate we will be like the UK.
Some examples of how radical Islam attacks freedom.
•Converts from Islam to Christianity in Great Britain are under assault from Muslim radicals for exercising the freedom to change religions.
•The British government bans publication on its government websites of an analysis of the growing strength of radical Islamists in Egypt by Barry Rubin.
•The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s several year push for a UN resolution that calls on countries to prohibit speech that “defames” Islam. Our own State Department has gotten on board with this unconstitutional resolution.
•The conviction in Austria of ACT! for America chapter leader Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff for “denigrating religion.” Her “illegal” action was to criticize the prophet Muhammad’s act of having sexual relations with his nine year old wife, Aisha.
Wherever radical Islam goes, the death of freedom follows. And now we are seeing our liberty threatened by our own President.
No!
It's a clear violation of the 6th amendment.
Middle ages Kings used to do this and we faulted them for it.
Its STILL wrong.
Unless this is repealed by Nov, Obama is NOT getting my vote.
Since this law expands coverage to include Americans who substantially support al-qaeda, the taliban, or associated forces, I expect to see urban and suburban SUV drivers locked up in droves until hostilities are over.
“That we would ever go back to something like the Japanese internment camps of world war two is horrifying.”
That sounds like a bit of an overreaction. As Jeff pointed out, the law is not nearly as eggregious as some of the rhetoric makes it out to be. But then, nothing any politician does is ever as bad as partisan opponents make it out to be, or as good as partisan supporters say it is.
“But, Steve, Obama promised ‘change.’ (guffaw)”
Don't they all? Except incumbents, of course. Bush promised a more "modest" foreign policy, but among his first acts was to abrogate the ABM treaty. They all promise "change" of one kind or another, but then deliver very little. Carter went the furthest in recent times in terms of trying to conduct foreign policy ethically, instead of merely pushing our national interest, and he was ridiculed for supposedly having a "blame America first" attitude. It's one of the reasons voters chose Reagan instead. Clinton ran on "change" but his policies weren't all that different from Bush-41's, and he certainly wasn't any less militaristic.
So, what happens? A president gets elected on a promise of "change," which then fails to materialize. Some of that is surely due to opposition in Congress, but a large part appears to be due to a change of heart in the newly inaugurated president. Does the office change them? Are they made aware of secret information that convinces them not to make the promised changes? Were they lying in the first place? Is there a secret cabal that has some leverage over the president? We probably can't know for sure.
Absolutely not! Every citizen has a right to due process. As far as non-military and non-naval presonnel are concerned, it seems to me that at least 3 (1,4 and 5) of our constitutionally guaranteed rights are being violated.
Under this law, which our ever vigilant Congress enacted, and our President signed, anyone of could be detained and held indefinitely by the military and tried by a military court.
What on Earth have we done. Let's undo this this fast.
No, this would be a clear violation of the writ of habeus corpus, which prevents detention without due process. This principle is one of the lesser-known, but most important, parts of the U.S. Constitution. WIthout it, anyone could be detained for any reason, indefinitely, without being charged with anything. In addition.....what is the legal definition of "terrorism" in this case?
Guess what happens when you fight evil with evil...
Posted by Emery | January 9, 2012 6:45 AM
I love riddles!!!!
how about this one (same answer as yours)
What do you get when you cross Kabballists with the Illuminati?...: )
NO. His having done so violated a core tenet of our nation.
One of Obama's campaign promises was to end this sort of thing, not expand it to include American citizens. All American's have the right to due process in civilian courts. That we would ever go back to something like the Japanese internment camps of world war two is horrifying. This is not the America I grew up in.
I wonder if Obama, and other Democrats, can run on the repeal of that provision.
In 1979 I had a political science class taught by a man who was a devout Marxist. One afternoon we (the class) and the instructor had a pretty heated debate over his belief that eventually our society would morph into what he called a "friendly fascism;" a state not as harsh as Italy under Mussolini, but one just as tyrannical. Of course the class (including myself) argued vehemently against his statement. I hate to say it, but since 1980 we have seen our rights diminish. This is especially true since 9/11. And although I will probably vote for Obama again (as the Republicans have not presented anyone any better) I have to say, this is just the most recent example of why I am starting to believe my old poly-sci professor might have been on to something.
While section 1021 does state “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.”, section 1022 states “a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force” and “participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.” For those persons, section (a) not only authorizes, but requires (absent a Presidential waiver), that they be held “in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.” The section title is “Military Custody for Foreign Al Qaeda Terrorists,” but the definition of who it covers does not exclude U.S. citizens or include any requirement of foreignness.
That section — 1022 — does not contain the broad disclaimer regarding U.S. citizens that 1021 contains. Instead, it simply says that the requirement of military detention does not apply to U.S. citizens, but it does not exclude U.S. citizens from the authority, the option, to hold them in military custody.
The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.
So Obama's choices were to veto it and wait for his veto to be overridden (a la Truman) or make some minor changes to preserve some flexibility (and avoid taking the "soft on defense" hit during an election year.) It's not like we haven't done this before - FDR's "exclusion zone" executive order that resulted in the detainment of thousands of American citizens of Japanese ancestry comes to mind (upheld by the Supreme Court and facilitated by the US Census Bureau.)
OF COURSE it's not right, but that's not how decisions are made or things get done (or people stay in office.)
(Greenwald had a good analysis of the specific text of the bill in Salon by the way if anyone is interested.)
not one of you have anyidea what in it...do you...
Obviously Not!
These representatives should be arrested and detained indefinitely:
ALL 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)
We (the people and our elected officials) shouldn't be detaining anyone without due process... foreign or domestic. - regardless of crime. Escalate the severity of the process and lower the burden of proof - if that is what it takes to staisfy the red-meat jingo-ists but... make the process happen under glass in full sunshine .... and admit what we are willing to tolerate and do ... as a nation... to those we incarcerate. It is utterly useless to have a "secret process" whose intent is to deter foreign or domestic activity .. if no one sees just how cold, cruel and efficient it is. It we need to be the beast - we better be proud enough to admit it. Any congress person feigning knowledge of our CIA-FBI-NSA-Homeland Secruity and ultimately Congresssionally sanctioned ill-treatment of humans is byond the laughable test and falls squarely in the "pants-on-fire here-an-extinguisher" relam of believability.
http://www.jacklondons.net/writings/IronHeel/toc.html
the story is incorrect. the NDAA does NO SUCH THING. the section in question grants NO NEW POWER TO ANY PRESIDENT OR ARM OF GOVERNMENT. the only thing that it does is relate terrorism to war (which it is) everything else in it has been law of war for just about forever.
this "story" has been misreported over just about every source because non of them have bothered to read it.
the law even EXPLICITLY says it doesnt apply to US citizens of lawfull aliens.
from the law-
SEC.1021.(e) AUTHORITIES.—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.
No, it was not alright.
To advocate or to defend these kinds of behaviors - the NDAA, the new doctrine of targeted citizen assassinations, wars by executive choice - is not simply to have a political opinion which people may reasonably disagree with around the water-cooler. To defend these kinds of behaviors is to make yourself offensive and dangerous to the well-being and dignity of those around you.
Apologists who would try to rationalize these insidious actions, and defend the individuals perpetrating them, make themselves passively culpable for the gross injustices that will be visited upon other people's children in generations to come. Comparisons to fascism and other historical examples of tyranny are not hyperbole; we're watching this happen openly in broad daylight.
This isn't partisan. It doesn't matter if Bush was worse or better. That's just a puppet trick. You are getting it good and hard, regardless.
http://www.city-journal.org/2012/eon0106fsjk.html
Once again, it's okay, it's Obama!
"It's remarkable how often Republicans these days criticize Obama for decisions that are essentially continuations of Bush-era policies."
But, Steve, Obama promised "change". (guffaw)
I did NOT vote for BHO… good luck with that one.
∑
DTOM
Of course it's not "right." Though it's also not right that this is a "Spending Bill."
If congress wants to push through spending bills at the last possible minute with things like this attached, they need to be prepared to answer to the consequences just as much as the president who simply signed a bill to keep the military funded rather then fight over a policy that is already in place thanks to the patriot act (both of which violate the constitution, like so many other laws.)
No, but anyone who points only at him are equally confused about our Constitution. It's worth pointing out that Senator Al Franken voted against this legislation.
No, but he could hardly do otherwise, with so many of his political opponents waiting to pounce on anything that looks like weakness. Bush isn't to blame either. He was just the useful fool of the neocons who were actually engineering policy for at least the duration of his first term. It's remarkable how often Republicans these days criticize Obama for decisions that are essentially continuations of Bush-era policies.
It's pretty messed up, and I can not see this current supreme court doing anything to overturn this travesty to the US constitution. The supreme court has been bought off by the corporate plutocrats like the rest of our government. Just look at the other travesty, Citizens united vs FEC.
Oh well america, you had a good run.
The Congress approved, the president signed, and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a broadly written law making it a crime to advocate for any organization the government deems sympathetic to terrorism. This includes challenging the “terrorist” designation in the first place.
Let's move on...
And go after the Wall Street bankers.
No, this violates an individual's civil liberties. However, since our government is made up of three distinct branches with the judiciary being one of them, I assume that a case will go through the courts and eventually the supreme court will decide the issue's constitutionality. The problem is that the court system works so slowly that the law will be in effect for a long period of time prior to a final judiciary decision.
@Hugo
The Obama presidency is essentially the third term of the GW Bush presidency.
@ GaryF 6:43 AM
Sir the Patriot act was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story....
Since 2001:
We’ve sent terrorist suspects to “black sites” to be detained without trial and tortured.
We’ve turned terrorist suspects over to other regimes, knowing that they’d be tortured.
In those cases when our government later learned it got the wrong guy, federal officials not only refused to apologize or compensate him, they went to court to argue he should be barred from using our courts to seek justice, and that the details of his abduction, torture, and detainment should be kept secret.
We’ve abducted and imprisoned dozens, perhaps hundreds of men in Guantanamo who turned out to have been innocent. Again, the government felt no obligation to do right by them.
The government launched a multimillion dollar ad campaign implying that people who smoke marijuana are implicit in the murder of nearly 3,000 of their fellow citizens.
The current president has also claimed the power to execute U.S. citizens, off the battlefield, without a trial, and to prevent anyone from knowing about it after the fact.
Flying in America now means enduring a humiliating and hassling ritual that does little if anything to actually make flying any safer. Every time the government fails to catch an attempt at terrorism, it punishes the public for its failure by adding to the ritual.
American Muslims, a heartening story of success and assimilation, are now harassed and denigrated for merely trying to build houses of worship.
Without a warrant, the government can search and seize indefinitely the laptops and other personal electronic devices of anyone entering the country.
The Department of Homeland Security now gives terrorism-fighting grants for local police departments across the country to purchase military equipment, such as armored personnel carriers, which is then used against U.S. citizens, mostly to serve drug warrants.
Absolutely not!
It's all Bushs' fault....right?....right?
Presidents from both of the two major political parties have claimed the power to detain suspected terrorists and hold them indefinitely without trial, based solely on the president’s designation of them as an “enemy combatant,” essentially making the president prosecutor, judge, and jury. (I’d also argue that the treatment of someone like Bradley Manning wouldn’t have been tolerated before September 11.)
September 11th, 2001 fundamentally altered who we are in ways that should make us pause at least a moment before raising our tiny America flags:
Guess what happens when you fight evil with evil...
Sure it's OK.
Our Dear Leader said it was.
No, of course it isn't right. (I don't know about impeachment. It was something he SIGNED, so a whole bunch of folks PASSED IT.)
It's a possibly inconvenient fact in our country that you can't lock someone up merely because you find them to be scarey, you have to have a concrete reason. A risky notion, maybe, but one I totally support. I hope the Supreme Court quashes this ASAP.
The very fact that this question is being asked is in itself disturbing enough. Is it right for anyone accused of anything to be held indefinitely without trial?? What kind of question is this?
The president is not right to establish a policy of detaining US citizens without due process. It's a clear violation of the constitution and an obvious impeachable offense.
| January 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock