President Obama has reminded us on several occasions that what separates us from the rest of humanity and makes us “exceptional” is that we are a nation of laws and we live by the rule of law.
What is omitted in this statement is that there are often times when the laws are destructive and dangerous. A perfect example are the Jim Crow laws which made it illegal for African-Americans to drink from the same water fountains, or attend the same schools, or eat at the same lunch counter as their fellow white Americans.
In 2003, Congress conceded to President George W. Bush the power to involve the U.S. in military actions against Iraq. This was accomplished by passing the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) and was limited to Iraq.
The NDAA, which includes the budget for the military, is renewed every year and along with budgetary changes, provisions, which are not budgetary, are included in the bill.
In 2012, President Obama signed into law the expanding NDAA legislation, which allowed for the unlimited or indefinite detention of those, designated by the executive branch as “terrorists”, without charges or trials.
The bill that initially was not intended to include U.S. citizens, has now, in 2015, evolved and includes all peoples who are designated as “imminent” threats to the security of the U.S. As the ACLU states, “The bill now says that detainees may be brought to the United States for “detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force” (AUMF). In plain English, that means the policy of indefinite detention by the military, without charge or trial, could be carried out here at home. Right now, the number of people in the U.S. in military indefinite detention is zero. If the bill is enacted, that number could immediately jump to 100 or more.”
The AUMF is the basis for the indefinite detention authority included in the NDAA that Congress passed nearly three years ago. This provision in the law also makes it possible for the government to continue indefinite detention of prisoners even after military combat is no longer operational.
This new bill would allow the U.S. to prevent those detainees who have been cleared for release to return home, leaving them in a state of limbo.
The ACLU also points out that the Senate NDAA bill tries to strip federal courts of their ability to “hear or consider” any challenge related to harmful treatment or conditions by detainees brought to the United States. This provision tries to gut our system of checks and balances by cutting out the courts.
Part of the power provided previously by the NDAA legislation is the targeting for assassination, by the president and members of his administration along with National Security and military personnel, those persons who are deemed threats to U.S. security. It has been reported that every Tuesday morning, the president meets with the aforementioned advisors to establish or develop a “kill list,” a list of people who have been designated for assassination.
This brings us to the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, born in New Mexico. In late September 2011, a group of American drones took off from an airstrip built by the CIA in Saudi Arabia and crossed into Yemen. Awlaki and Samir Khan were killed. Both were Americans.
Awlaki was identified as an imminent threat to the U.S. Yet, there was no evidence that, other than giving speeches denouncing U.S. imperialism and militarism, he was actively involved in any “terrorist” action against the U.S.
Both Awlaki and Khan were outspoken in their denunciation of the U.S. and they were publishing articles and making speeches with that theme foremost.
It is not clear what imminent threat they made to U.S. security. Did they not have the right of free speech and expression that we claim to hold dear? Should the president be the one to accuse, judge, and execute those who are not favored?
On October 14, 2011, just three weeks after the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki, his teenage son was killed in a drone attack along with 12 other people. When asked why this young boy was targeted, an official stated that he should have chosen a better father.
The current situation is that President Obama has sent Congress a formal request to authorize military force against the Islamic State six months after the U.S. began bombing Iraq and Syria. The resolution imposes a three-year limit on U.S. operations, but does not put any geographical constraints. It also opens the door for ground combat operations in limited circumstances. The resolution’s broad language covers military action against the Islamic State as well as “individuals and organizations fighting for, on behalf of, or alongside [ISIS] or any closely-related successor entity in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” The resolution also leaves in place the open-ended Authorization for Use of Military Force Congress enacted one week after the Sept. 11, 2001, which has been used to justify U.S. action in Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen and beyond, and which Obama had previously called for repealing.
In an interview on Democracy Now on February 11, Norman Solomon, executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, co-founder of RootsAction.org, author of many books, including War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death, responded to Obama’s newest proposal by stating the following, “This latest effort by President Obama to get war authorization in political terms, represents a sort of repetition compulsion disorder, back to the future from an administration that came in saying it was going to dispense with the concept—or at least the phraseology—of a war on terror, an administration that even today, through the president’s statement, is again asserting that it’s against endless war, and yet both the statement from the president yesterday and the resolution—and, for that matter, the White House policy—is explicitly endless, perpetual war. And that’s the kind of policy we’re getting.”
Why did Obama place a three-year limit then on U.S. operations?
Mr. Solomon replies: “Window dressing, just a scam, just a way to give a sort of a fig leaf to the people called antiwar Democrats or some libertarian Republicans. But it’s just a way of sort of rowing the boat with a little bit of a deference to the right and left in Congress, that what it boils down to is kicking the war can down the road—a very bloody one, to put it mildly—and absolutely running a manipulative public relations campaign.”
President Obama came to office promising the end to endless war. Yet, we see him pursuing the very open-ended authorization that will ensure that we will be at war continuously. There will be no boundaries or restrictions and we will certainly always be searching for enemies and when we cannot identify them, we will create them.
At a press conference, Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked about the lack of clarity in the wording of this proposal. He responded, “The wording of the AUMF is intentionally fuzzy to give the president more authority to respond to changing situations on the ground in the Middle East.”
In other words, Obama can go anywhere in the world and unilaterally initiate military action and involvement, disregarding sovereign boundaries and the will of the people he supposedly represents.
What is being proposed is extremely dangerous and undermines the Constitution of the United States. I’m certain that as a constitutional lawyer Mr. Obama recognizes that. We are entering the era of the imperial president who has shown a willingness to implement the agenda of corporate America and that ain’t good for the rest of us.
As I’ve said in the past, to understand what is happening, look at who benefits.
Dave Alpert has masters degrees in social work, educational administration, and psychology. He spent his career working with troubled inner city adolescents.
RSS
The imperial president—no limits on executive power
Posted on February 25, 2015 by Dave Alpert
President Obama has reminded us on several occasions that what separates us from the rest of humanity and makes us “exceptional” is that we are a nation of laws and we live by the rule of law.
What is omitted in this statement is that there are often times when the laws are destructive and dangerous. A perfect example are the Jim Crow laws which made it illegal for African-Americans to drink from the same water fountains, or attend the same schools, or eat at the same lunch counter as their fellow white Americans.
In 2003, Congress conceded to President George W. Bush the power to involve the U.S. in military actions against Iraq. This was accomplished by passing the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) and was limited to Iraq.
The NDAA, which includes the budget for the military, is renewed every year and along with budgetary changes, provisions, which are not budgetary, are included in the bill.
In 2012, President Obama signed into law the expanding NDAA legislation, which allowed for the unlimited or indefinite detention of those, designated by the executive branch as “terrorists”, without charges or trials.
The bill that initially was not intended to include U.S. citizens, has now, in 2015, evolved and includes all peoples who are designated as “imminent” threats to the security of the U.S. As the ACLU states, “The bill now says that detainees may be brought to the United States for “detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force” (AUMF). In plain English, that means the policy of indefinite detention by the military, without charge or trial, could be carried out here at home. Right now, the number of people in the U.S. in military indefinite detention is zero. If the bill is enacted, that number could immediately jump to 100 or more.”
The AUMF is the basis for the indefinite detention authority included in the NDAA that Congress passed nearly three years ago. This provision in the law also makes it possible for the government to continue indefinite detention of prisoners even after military combat is no longer operational.
This new bill would allow the U.S. to prevent those detainees who have been cleared for release to return home, leaving them in a state of limbo.
The ACLU also points out that the Senate NDAA bill tries to strip federal courts of their ability to “hear or consider” any challenge related to harmful treatment or conditions by detainees brought to the United States. This provision tries to gut our system of checks and balances by cutting out the courts.
Part of the power provided previously by the NDAA legislation is the targeting for assassination, by the president and members of his administration along with National Security and military personnel, those persons who are deemed threats to U.S. security. It has been reported that every Tuesday morning, the president meets with the aforementioned advisors to establish or develop a “kill list,” a list of people who have been designated for assassination.
This brings us to the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, born in New Mexico. In late September 2011, a group of American drones took off from an airstrip built by the CIA in Saudi Arabia and crossed into Yemen. Awlaki and Samir Khan were killed. Both were Americans.
Awlaki was identified as an imminent threat to the U.S. Yet, there was no evidence that, other than giving speeches denouncing U.S. imperialism and militarism, he was actively involved in any “terrorist” action against the U.S.
Both Awlaki and Khan were outspoken in their denunciation of the U.S. and they were publishing articles and making speeches with that theme foremost.
It is not clear what imminent threat they made to U.S. security. Did they not have the right of free speech and expression that we claim to hold dear? Should the president be the one to accuse, judge, and execute those who are not favored?
On October 14, 2011, just three weeks after the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki, his teenage son was killed in a drone attack along with 12 other people. When asked why this young boy was targeted, an official stated that he should have chosen a better father.
The current situation is that President Obama has sent Congress a formal request to authorize military force against the Islamic State six months after the U.S. began bombing Iraq and Syria. The resolution imposes a three-year limit on U.S. operations, but does not put any geographical constraints. It also opens the door for ground combat operations in limited circumstances. The resolution’s broad language covers military action against the Islamic State as well as “individuals and organizations fighting for, on behalf of, or alongside [ISIS] or any closely-related successor entity in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” The resolution also leaves in place the open-ended Authorization for Use of Military Force Congress enacted one week after the Sept. 11, 2001, which has been used to justify U.S. action in Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen and beyond, and which Obama had previously called for repealing.
In an interview on Democracy Now on February 11, Norman Solomon, executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, co-founder of RootsAction.org, author of many books, including War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death, responded to Obama’s newest proposal by stating the following, “This latest effort by President Obama to get war authorization in political terms, represents a sort of repetition compulsion disorder, back to the future from an administration that came in saying it was going to dispense with the concept—or at least the phraseology—of a war on terror, an administration that even today, through the president’s statement, is again asserting that it’s against endless war, and yet both the statement from the president yesterday and the resolution—and, for that matter, the White House policy—is explicitly endless, perpetual war. And that’s the kind of policy we’re getting.”
Why did Obama place a three-year limit then on U.S. operations?
Mr. Solomon replies: “Window dressing, just a scam, just a way to give a sort of a fig leaf to the people called antiwar Democrats or some libertarian Republicans. But it’s just a way of sort of rowing the boat with a little bit of a deference to the right and left in Congress, that what it boils down to is kicking the war can down the road—a very bloody one, to put it mildly—and absolutely running a manipulative public relations campaign.”
President Obama came to office promising the end to endless war. Yet, we see him pursuing the very open-ended authorization that will ensure that we will be at war continuously. There will be no boundaries or restrictions and we will certainly always be searching for enemies and when we cannot identify them, we will create them.
At a press conference, Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked about the lack of clarity in the wording of this proposal. He responded, “The wording of the AUMF is intentionally fuzzy to give the president more authority to respond to changing situations on the ground in the Middle East.”
In other words, Obama can go anywhere in the world and unilaterally initiate military action and involvement, disregarding sovereign boundaries and the will of the people he supposedly represents.
What is being proposed is extremely dangerous and undermines the Constitution of the United States. I’m certain that as a constitutional lawyer Mr. Obama recognizes that. We are entering the era of the imperial president who has shown a willingness to implement the agenda of corporate America and that ain’t good for the rest of us.
As I’ve said in the past, to understand what is happening, look at who benefits.
Dave Alpert has masters degrees in social work, educational administration, and psychology. He spent his career working with troubled inner city adolescents.