Keep up with the news by installing RT’s extension for . Never miss a story with this clean and simple app that delivers the latest headlines to you.

 

Obama signs NDAA 2013 without objecting to indefinite detention of Americans

Published time: January 03, 2013 17:01
Edited time: May 15, 2013 14:24
US President Barack Obama (AFP Photo/Brendan Smialowsky)

President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 on Wednesday, giving his stamp of approval to a Pentagon spending bill that will keep Guantanamo Bay open and make indefinite detention for US citizens as likely as ever.

The president inked his name to the 2013 NDAA on Wednesday evening to little fanfare, and accompanied his signature with a statement condemning a fair number of provisions contained in a bill that he nevertheless endorsed.

The NDAA, an otherwise mundane annual bill that lays out the use of funds for the Department of Defense, has come under attack during the Obama administration for the introduction of a provision last year that allows the military to detain United States citizens indefinitely without charge or trial for mere suspicions of ties to terrorism. Under the 2012 NDAA’s Sec. 1021, Pres. Obama agreed to give the military the power to arrest and hold Americans without the writ of habeas corpus, although he promised with that year’s signing statement that his administration would not abuse that privilege.

In response to the controversial indefinite detention provision from last year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) introduced an amendment in December 2012 that would have forbid the government from using military force to indefinitely detain Americans without trial under the 2013 NDAA. Although that provision, dubbed the “Feinstein Amendment,” passed the Senate unanimously, a select panel of lawmakers led by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Michigan) stripped it from the final version of the NDAA two week later before it could clear Congress. In exchange, Congress added a provision, Sec. 1029, that claims to ensure that “any person inside the United States” is allowed their constitutional rights, including habeas corpus, but supporters of the Feinstein Amendment say that the swapped wording does nothing to erase the indefinite detention provision from the previous year.

“Saying that new language somehow ensures the right to habeas corpus – the right to be presented before a judge – is both questionable and not enough. Citizens must not only be formally charged but also receive jury trials and the other protections our Constitution guarantees. Habeas corpus is simply the beginning of due process. It is by no means the whole,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) said after the Feinstein Amendment was removed.

“Our Bill of Rights is not something that can be cherry-picked at legislators’ convenience. When I entered the United States Senate, I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. It is for this reason that I will strongly oppose passage of the McCain conference report that strips the guarantee to a trial by jury,” Sen. Paul added.

Although the Pres. Obama rejected the indefinite detention clause when signing the 2012 NDAA, a statement issued late Wednesday from the White House failed to touch on the military’s detainment abilities. On the other hand, Pres. Obama did voice his opposition to a number of provisions included in the latest bill, particularly ones that will essentially render his promise of closing the Guantanamo Bay military prison impossible.

Despite repeated pleas that Gitmo will be closed on his watch, Pres. Obama failed to do as much during his first term in the White House. Thanks to a provision in the 2013 NDAA, the Pentagon will be unable to use funds to transfer detainees out of that facility and to other sights, ensuring they will remain at the top-secret military prison for the time being.

“Even though I support the vast majority of the provisions contained in this Act, which is comprised of hundreds of sections spanning more than 680 pages of text, I do not agree with them all. Our Constitution does not afford the president the opportunity to approve or reject statutory sections one by one,” Pres. Obama writes.

Congress, claims the president, designed sections of the new defense bill “in order to foreclose my ability to shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.”

“I continue to believe that operating the facility weakens our national security by wasting resources, damaging our relationships with key allies and strengthening our enemies,” he says.

Elsewhere, the president claims that certain provisions in the act threaten to interview with his “constitutional duty to supervise the executive branch” of the United States.

Before the 2013 NDAA was finalized, it was reported by the White House that Pres. Obama would veto the legislation over the provisions involving Guantanamo Bay. Similarly, the White House originally said the president would veto the 2012 NDAA over the indefinite detention provisions, although he signed it regardless “with reservations” on December 31 of that year.

Since authorizing the 2012 NDAA, the president has been challenged in federal court by a team of plaintiffs who say that the indefinite detention clause is unconstitutional. US District Judge Katherine Forrest agreed that Sec. 1021 of the 2012 NDAA violated the US Constitution and granted a permanent injunction on the Obama administration from using that provision, but the White House successfully fought to appeal that decision.

Commenting on the latest signing, American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Anthony Romero says, "President Obama has utterly failed the first test of his second term, even before inauguration day.”

“His signature means indefinite detention without charge or trial, as well as the illegal military commissions, will be extended,” adds Romero. "He also has jeopardized his ability to close Guantanamo during his presidency. Scores of men who have already been held for nearly 11 years without being charged with a crime--including more than 80 who have been cleared for transfer--may very well be imprisoned unfairly for yet another year. The president should use whatever discretion he has in the law to order many of the detainees transferred home, and finally step up next year to close Guantanamo and bring a definite end to indefinite detention."

Comments (41)

green lantern (unregistered) 10.01.2013 11:29

With the obvious HALO in the background and the hand gesturing- he should be president as well as he new Pope.
Or just write his own law by abusing "misusing" executive priviledges and which a do nothing congress sits silently in the background & make himself a Saint- does Islam  have saints?
Ok then an Imam "works for me".

0

Undo

green lantern (unregistered) 08.01.2013 14:20

Where is this transparent government you promised Barry?
Open the curtain for the people to discover 'truth" that forbidden truth as it seems today as it was yesterday.
I seem to be blind to this Light of truth and change that was promised.
I fail to see this change of becoming more clear- more transparent.
I do see a shadowed system in government that is heading towards a cliff- and the much blinded "cheering along the way".
Legalizin g lifetime imprisonment and assassination? I’m sure you can recognize from history that laws are always abused by those who write them- this is the history if you care to look. Now I have HIGH men who claim they own me or the planet but I’m no fool sir I don’t accept this silliness. I don’t care about the "King of the Hill" game or the paper "CHASE". Let’s go back for a second and learn just where did the tyrants end and the DAEMON-ARISTOCRACY begin? A dictator or despot is someone who rules with absolute authority, usually cruelly. It now has the same meaning as 'tyrant', whereas before, 'tyrant' meant something like 'ruler' or 'king'. In the 10th and 9th centuries BC, Ancient Greece was ruled by monarchs. By the 7th century BC, they were ruled by groups of aristocrats. Th ese aristocrats started to become unpopular. This gave cruel people the chance to get power for themselves, telling the people that they would be good rulers, but turning bad once they got power. Seems they had the very same issues 3000 years ago- how this possible? Easy- Shorten man’s lifespan- shut down areas of DNA- making man incredibly ignorant unable to see well in his mind- unable to recognize things such as who is really behind the man or the shadowed man. Today 3000 years later to even bring this subject up draws ideas of delusions- that’s how long the lie has been firmly in place- truth cannot be recognized anymore. Tell you subjects about “ALEXANDRIA” and the “Mysteries” Mr prez. So that they too can know a more “Knowledge is real power” not thrones. Knowledge is the real treasure not gold or paper.

0

Undo

Republic=Prosperity! (unregistered) 05.01.2013 09:30

No Democracy (unregistered) wrote in #18The USA was set up as a Constitutional Republic and specifically NOT a Democracy. The founding fathers called democracy "tyranny of the masses", and they were entirely correct. A freedon loving person should fear democracy just as much as communism, fascism, socialism, or any other "ism" you can think of. Freedom is NOT voted on. Freedom is won in battle sagainst those who would have you do things their way. A political solution to current problems ceased to be relevant a long time ago. People came into power who will be removed from power by no other means but greater force than they can apply against others a long time ago. Their charade is starting to be ineffective, so eventually it will come down to the show of force anyway. If you want a "return to democracy" or some other such nonsense, then know that my weapons would be aimed at you as much as if you were an avowed communist or Nazi fascist. Being just plain stupid is also anathema to freedom, so that isn't going to be tolerated either. I'm not concerned about freedom for most people, but only for the few that truly deserve it. Freedom is not inherited by birthright, but it is possible to inherit genes that lead one to think like a free man.....who at heart will always be a warrior because it has to be that way.You're Righ! However, if you tell someone and keep saying the same thing that "Democracy" is what we are then people believe it because they heard it so it must be true. Also, Take a look at the 17th amendment we had checks and balances, but the 17th amendment now makes state Senators elected by popular vote, which now voids the senators by which they were elected by state legislatures. That is when we died as a Republic and became a Deomocracy, where Majority (mob) rules. Benjamin Franklin even said, "A Republic, if you can keep it" NOT a Democracy, nor does the word "Democracy" appear in the Constitution ANYWHERE.

0

Undo

View all comments (41)
Add comment

By posting your comment, you agree to abide by our Posting rules

Log in to comment in full, or comment anonymously under character-limit restriction.

100 Text

– required fields

Register or

Name

Password

Show password

Register

or Register

Request a new password

Send

or Register

To complete a registration check
your Email:

or Register

A password has been sent to your email address

Edit profile

Name

New password

Retype new password

Current password

Save

Cancel

Follow us