[Peace-discuss] Occupy! LA Rejects National Defense Authorization Act

Sun Dec 4 09:16:09 CST 2011

Now is my way clear, now is the meaning plain:
Temptation shall not come in this kind again.
The last temptation is the greatest treason:
To do the right deed for the wrong reason.

Let’s be very clear, though, about what the “veto threat” is and is  
not. All things considered, I’m glad the White House is opposing this  
bill rather than supporting it. But, with a few exceptions, the  
objections raised by the White House are not grounded in substantive  
problems with these powers, but rather in the argument that such  
matters are for the Executive Branch, not the Congress, to decide. In  
other words, the White House’s objections are grounded in broad  
theories of Executive Power. They are not arguing: it is wrong to deny  
accused Terrorists a trial. Instead they insist: whether an accused  
Terrorist is put in military detention rather than civilian custody is  
for the President alone to decide. Over and over, the White House’s  
statement emphasizes Executive power as the basis for its objections  
to Levin/McCain:

"Broadly speaking, the detention provisions in this bill micromanage  
the work of our experienced counterterrorism professionals, including  
our military commanders, intelligence professionals, seasoned  
counterterrorism prosecutors, or other operatives in the field. These  
professionals have successfully led a Government-wide effort to  
disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and  
adherents over two consecutive Administrations. The Administration  
believes strongly that it would be a mistake for Congress to overrule  
or limit the tactical flexibility of our Nation’s counterterrorism  
professionals."

It’s certainly possible that the administration is simply offering  
these Executive Power arguments as a fig leaf to hide their more  
politically difficult substantive objections to expanding the War on  
Terror. But that seems unlikely in the extreme, given that — as I have  
documented — most of these powers are ones expressly claimed and used  
already by the Obama administration. Does anyone believe that the same  
President who kills his own citizens without a whiff of due process or  
transparency is suddenly so concerned about the imperatives of due  
process? Indeed, Marcy Wheeler has repeatedly suggested that, in some  
important respects, Levin/McCain could actually limit Executive Power  
beyond what the Obama DOJ has seized, and for that reason, has mixed  
feelings about the Udall amendment to remove it:

"As I have repeatedly described, I have very mixed feelings about the  
debate over Detainee Provisions set to pass the Senate tonight or  
tomorrow. I view it as a fight between advocates of martial law and  
advocates of relatively unchecked Presidential power. And as I’ve  
pointed out, the SASC compromise language actually limits Presidential  
power as it has been interpreted in a series of secret OLC opinions."

I’m willing to believe that there is genuine White House opposition to  
having the military detain and imprison U.S. citizens on U.S. soil,  
and that’s commendable if true (though it’s a sign of just how  
extremist our government is that we’re grateful for that). Indeed, the  
Obama administration has opted for civilian trials for accused  
Terrorists captured on U.S. soil (outside of Padilla, so, too, did the  
Bush DOJ, and even Padilla was eventually charged). But by and large  
the White House’s objections are not to these powers but — explicitly  
— to the idea that Congress rather than the President can dictate how  
they are exercised. The White House isn’t defending due process or  
limited war; it’s defending broad Executive prerogatives to prosecute  
the war without Congressional interference.

In that regard, the “debate” over this bill has taken on the standard  
vapid, substance-free, anti-democratic form that shapes most  
Washington debates. Even Democratic opponents of the bill, such as  
Mark Udall, have couched their opposition in these Executive Power  
arguments: that it’s better for National Security if the CIA, the  
Pentagon and the DOJ decides what is done with Terrorists, not  
Congress. In other words, the debate has entailed very little  
discussion of whether these powers are dangerous or Constitutional,  
and has instead focused almost entirely on which of Our Nation’s  
Strong National Security Experts should make these decisions (one of  
the few exceptions to this is Rand Paul, who, continuing in his New- 
Russ-Feingold role on these issues, passionately argued why these  
powers are such a menace to basic Constitutional guarantees). In sum,  
the debate is over who in the National Security Priesthood should get  
to decide which accused Terrorist suspects are denied due process, not  
whether they should be.

* * * * *

[The preceding - except for the verse - is from <http://www.salon.com/2011/12/01/congress_endorsing_military_detention_a_new_aumf/singleton/ 
 >.] --CGE

On Dec 4, 2011, at 3:28 AM, E. Wayne Johnson wrote:

> The General Assembly of Occupy Los Angeles adopted the following  
> statement and demand on Saturday, December 3, 2011:
>
> Occupy Los Angeles Rejects the National Defense Authorization Act
>
> Occupy Los Angeles demands that President Obama veto the National  
> Defense Authorization Act. The legislation includes provisions which  
> destroy the Constitutional rights of Habeas Corpus and Due Process.  
> American citizens and all people everywhere have the inalienable  
> right to contest their imprisonment and to a civilian trial by jury.  
> We reject this and all legislation which abridges these rights as  
> well as the false belief that doing so will make the nation more  
> secure. The bill also contains sanctions against the oil industry  
> and monetary systems of Iran which are clear predecessors to a  
> military attack. Additionally, the bill funds wars that the majority  
> of Americans oppose. These endless, senseless wars only serve the  
> Corporatist interests of the 1% and we oppose this and all  
> legislation which enables and perpetuates them.
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20111204/a5199423/attachment-0001.html>