white gold bvlgari bracelet b zero.1 knockoff often Online Mall Offer convenient everybody buy from sefien's blog

Three myths about the detention bill

These denunciations come not only from the nation leading civil liberties and human rights groups, but also from the pro ObamaNew York TimesEditorial Page, which today has a scathing Editorial describing Obama stance as complete political cave in, one that reinforces the impression of a fumbling presidency and lamenting that bill has so many other objectionable aspects that we can't go into them all, as well as from vocal Obama supporters such as Andrew Sullivan, who wrote yesterdaythatthis episode is sign that his campaign pledge to be vigilant bvlgari replica b zero1 ring about civil liberties in the war on terror was a lie. In damage control mode, White House allied groups are now trying to ride to the rescue with attacks on the ACLU and dismissive belittling of the bill dangers. military as person who was a 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. With regard to those individuals, this is the power vested in the President by the next section, (c):

It simply cannot be any clearer within the confines of the English language that this bill codifies the power of indefinite detention. It expressly empowers the President with regard to anyone accusedof the acts in section (b) detain them trial until the end of the hostilities. That is the very definition of detention, and the statute could not be clearer that it vests this power. Anyone claiming this bill does not codify indefinite detention should be forced to explain how they can claim that in light of this crystal clear provision. That why the NDAA can state that nothing is intended to expand the 2001 AUMF while achieving exactly that: because the Executive and judicial interpretation being given to the 20o1 AUMF is already so much broader than its language provides.

But this is the first time this power of indefinite detention is being expressly codified by statute (there not a word about detention powers in the 2001 AUMF). Indeed, as the ACLU and HRW both pointed out, it the first time such powers are being codified in a statute since the McCarthy era Internal Security Act of 1950,about which I wrote yesterday.

Myth 2: The bill does not expand the scope of the War on Terror as defined by the 2001 AUMF

This myth is very easily dispensed with. The scope of the war as defined by the original 2001 AUMF was, at least relative to this new bill, quite specific and narrow. That it. Now look at how much broader the NDAA is with regard to who can be targeted:

Section (1) is basically a re statement of the 2001 AUMF. But Section (2) is a brand new addition. It allows the President to target not only those who helped perpetrate the 9/11 attacks or those who harbored them, but also: anyone who supports such groups and/or forces. Those are extremely vague terms subject to wild and obvious levels of abuse (see what Law Professor Jonathan Hafetz told me in an interview last week about the dangers of those terms). Government boasting that virtually all Al Qaeda leaders have been eliminated and the original organization (the one accused of perpetrating 9/11 attack) rendered inoperable. But this is the first time that Congress has codified that wildly expanded definition of the Enemy in the War on Terror. And all anyone has to do to see that is compare the old AUMF with the new one in the NDAA. citizens are exempted from this new bill

This is simply false, at least when expressed so definitively and without caveats. The bill is purposely muddled on this issue which is what is enabling the falsehood.

There are two separate indefinite military detention provisions in this bill. citizens, but does so only for the powers vested by that specific section. citizens captured abroad).

But the next section, Section 1022, is a different story. That section specifically deals with a smaller category of people than the broad group covered by 1021: namely, anyone whom the President determines is member of, or part of, al Qaeda or an associated force and in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners. citizens or include any requirement of foreignness.

The most important point on this issue is the same as underscored in the prior two points: the reached by Congress includes language preserving the status quo. citizens as enemy combatants). soil is that amendments offered by Sen. Feinstein providing expressly fake buy bvlgari ring for those exemptions were rejected. The was to preserve vintage bvlgari rings copy the status quo by including the provision that the bill is not intended to alter it with regard to American citizens, but that because proponents of broad detention powers are confident that the status quo already permits such detention.

In sum, there is simply no question that this bill codifies indefinite bvlgari replica ring men detention without trial (Myth 1). There is no question that it significantly expands the statutory definitions of the War on Terror and those who can be targeted as part of it (Myth 2). That codification entrenches these powers. As the New York TimesEditorial today put it:the bill contains new measures that will make indefinite detention and military trials a permanent part of American law. particularly ironic (and revealing) about all of this is that former White House counsel Greg Craig assured The New Yorker Jane Mayer back in February, 2009 that it to imagine Barack Obama as the first President of the United States to introduce a preventive detention law. Four months later, President Obama proposed exactly such a law one that The New York Timesdescribedas departure from the way this country sees itself, as a place where people in the grip of the government either face criminal charges or walk free and now he will sign such a scheme into law.

Previous post     
     Next post
     Blog home

The Wall

No comments
You need to sign in to comment