Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The Harvard Law Record: Indefinite Detention Under the NDAA: the Great Attack on Civil Liberties
http://hlrecord.org/?p=1451On December 31, 2011, President Barack Obama signed the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law. Many of you may not have heard of it because the holidays aren’t exactly conducive to keeping up with current events, but the NDAA represents one of the most dramatic attacks on civil liberties in this country in many years. While the NDAA contains many routine provisions related to defense spending, there are two particular provisions that should deeply trouble any American concerned with the encroachment upon civil liberties that has been the hallmark of post-9/11 America.
Section 1021 affirms that the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) authorizes detention of anybody whom the President determines was involved in the attacks of 9/11, as well as detention of anybody who substantially supports or is a member of al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces. This detention is authorized so long as the hostilities authorized by the AUMF are ongoing. Of course, because the battle against al-Qaeda may never end, Section 1021 is essentially a de facto authorization of indefinite detention.
Section 1022 states that if an individual is detained under the authority of Section 1021, that person must be held by the military. This mandate does not apply to a citizen or lawful resident of the United States. Put these sections together and a scary picture emerges in which a person accused of being a member of a terrorist group, or even of substantially supporting one, can be detained by the military as long as the United States is at war with al-Qaeda.
This codification of indefinite detention is chilling because it represents how quickly and drastically our nation’s discourse about civil liberties has changed in just a few years. Fewer than four years ago we elected a president who explicitly and strongly campaigned on closing Guantanamo Bay, the internationally infamous facility in which terrorist suspects were being indefinitely detained. Now that same president is signing a bill codifying some of the practices against which he had so vigorously campaigned. So long as George W. Bush was indefinitely detaining terrorism suspects Democrats could criticize it as representing the worst of the Bush regime and civil libertarians could decry it as a panicked overreaction to 9/11. And while it is true that Obama had long claimed to have the authority to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects prior to the passage of the NDAA, his position could be seen as representing only the viewpoint of one president trying to arrogate power. But now indefinite detention is not a partisan issue, nor can it be described as a panicked reaction or an overreach by a greedy branch of government. Instead, ten years after 9/11, it has been written into our laws by a bipartisan legislature that is codifying the practices of two presidencies from two different parties. Imprisonment without trial, that hallmark of tyranny which seems so anathema to a nation that values freedom and a governmental system based on checks on government and due process, has been written into the laws of this country with shockingly little outcry from the American people.
snip
---------------------------------------------------------------
12 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Not my field, speculating. Senator Levin appears in the Special Features of The Conspirator. The Conspirator advocates support for the US Constitution under all circumstances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conspirator
The Conspirator is a 2011 historical drama film directed by Robert Redford based on a book by Eliza Ann Dupuy of the same name. It is the debut film of the American Film Company.
Critics have cited it as an analogy to the post-9/11 atmosphere.
The Conspirator is a 2011 historical drama film directed by Robert Redford based on a book by Eliza Ann Dupuy of the same name. It is the debut film of the American Film Company.
Critics have cited it as an analogy to the post-9/11 atmosphere.
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/04/23/are-you-tired-of-9-11-message-movies/
Apr 23 2011 12:29 PM ET
'The Conspirator' is a post-9/11 message movie. Are you as tired of post-9/11 message movies as I am?
by Owen Gleiberman
[img]
[/img]
<...>
The latest of these well-meaning attempts to mold 9/11 and its aftermath into a piece of dramatic entertainment is Robert Redford’s The Conspirator. On the surface, you might not even think that’s so, since the movie is a courtroom drama set 150 years ago, just after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Yet Redford uses that other rending national tragedy as a giant metaphor. The movie is about a young Civil War hero, Frederick Aiken (James McAvoy), who is assigned, as an inexperienced Washington lawyer, to defend a woman, Mary Surratt (Robin Wright), who’s accused of being part of a conspiracy to kill the president. It doesn’t take Aiken long to figure out that the proceeding is really a sham, a show trial — that she’s going to be found guilty, regardless of the facts, and that it’s all part of the government’s attempt to give the nation closure through an officially sanctioned act of legal vengeance.
In The Conspirator, Redford goes back to one of the only events in American history that tore at the country’s identity as violently as 9/11 did. And he demonstrates that what happened back then, during the trial of Mary Surratt, amounted to the squashing of rights, the twisting of protocol, the suspension of justice for “the sake of the nation.” Edwin Stanton, played by Kevin Kline, was the Secretary of War under Lincoln, and he makes the argument for why Mary must be found guilty (even though she is, at least in the movie, innocent). He becomes the film’s version of Dick Cheney, taking the low road of force over constitutional safeguard. And Aiken, the last-honest-man hero (played by McAvoy with a lively glint of moral passion), realizes that if he doesn’t fight this bureaucratic railroading, he’s colluding in the destruction of the American system, the American way. The movie’s message is: In America, the ends do not — cannot — justify the means. That, the film says, is the meaning of America. Redford clearly intends this message as a commentary on all the legally dicey things that have gone on in the aftermath of 9/11: the detaining of terrorist suspects, with little or no evidence, and with no representation or deadline, in the prison at Guantánamo; the underground use of torture techniques that violate articles of the Geneva Convention; the willingness to suspend the law for the sake of an anti-terror, we-fight-fire-with-fire absolutism.
More at link.
Apr 23 2011 12:29 PM ET
'The Conspirator' is a post-9/11 message movie. Are you as tired of post-9/11 message movies as I am?
by Owen Gleiberman
[img]
[/img]
<...>
The latest of these well-meaning attempts to mold 9/11 and its aftermath into a piece of dramatic entertainment is Robert Redford’s The Conspirator. On the surface, you might not even think that’s so, since the movie is a courtroom drama set 150 years ago, just after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Yet Redford uses that other rending national tragedy as a giant metaphor. The movie is about a young Civil War hero, Frederick Aiken (James McAvoy), who is assigned, as an inexperienced Washington lawyer, to defend a woman, Mary Surratt (Robin Wright), who’s accused of being part of a conspiracy to kill the president. It doesn’t take Aiken long to figure out that the proceeding is really a sham, a show trial — that she’s going to be found guilty, regardless of the facts, and that it’s all part of the government’s attempt to give the nation closure through an officially sanctioned act of legal vengeance.
In The Conspirator, Redford goes back to one of the only events in American history that tore at the country’s identity as violently as 9/11 did. And he demonstrates that what happened back then, during the trial of Mary Surratt, amounted to the squashing of rights, the twisting of protocol, the suspension of justice for “the sake of the nation.” Edwin Stanton, played by Kevin Kline, was the Secretary of War under Lincoln, and he makes the argument for why Mary must be found guilty (even though she is, at least in the movie, innocent). He becomes the film’s version of Dick Cheney, taking the low road of force over constitutional safeguard. And Aiken, the last-honest-man hero (played by McAvoy with a lively glint of moral passion), realizes that if he doesn’t fight this bureaucratic railroading, he’s colluding in the destruction of the American system, the American way. The movie’s message is: In America, the ends do not — cannot — justify the means. That, the film says, is the meaning of America. Redford clearly intends this message as a commentary on all the legally dicey things that have gone on in the aftermath of 9/11: the detaining of terrorist suspects, with little or no evidence, and with no representation or deadline, in the prison at Guantánamo; the underground use of torture techniques that violate articles of the Geneva Convention; the willingness to suspend the law for the sake of an anti-terror, we-fight-fire-with-fire absolutism.
More at link.
