The irony in American history

11.20.2012 Leave a comment

Glenn Greenwald noticed and wrote about a bit of this with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan:

It is ironic indeed that the US is demanding that the practice of due-process-free indefinite detention be continued in Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries it invaded and then occupied while claiming it wanted to bring freedom and democracy there. But on one level, this is the only outcome that makes sense, as a denial of basic due process is now a core, defining US policy in general.

Indeed, the Nobel Laureate, whenever he acts as Commander in Chief of America’s security-surveillance apparatus and when he governs its global empire, can claim and use prerogative powers to achieve his ends. Simply put, the rule of law does not apply to him when operating in this domain.

To be sure, the Nobel Laureate and proposed conscience of the nation defends its lawless powers:

The Obama administration not only continues to imprison people without charges of any kind, but intended from the start to do so even if their plan to relocate Guantanamo onto US soil had not been thwarted by Congress. At the end of 2011, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act which codifies the power of indefinite detention even for US citizens, and — after an Obama-appointed federal judge struck it down as unconstitutional — continues vigorously to fight for that law. And, of course, the power to assassinate even its own citizens without a whiff of due process or transparency — the policy that so upset Afghan officials when it was proposed for their country — is a crowning achievement of the Obama legacy.

With the Great Betrayal at hand, a deed only a Democratic President can commit, I can confidently assert that Barack Obama is proving to be a worthy competitor for the Worst President in History prize.

Related articles

Filed under Commentary Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Quote of the day

5.17.2012 Leave a comment

Glenn Greenwald wrote:

A federal district judge today, the newly-appointed Katherine Forrest of the Southern District of New York, issued an amazing ruling: one which preliminarily enjoins enforcement of the highly controversial indefinite provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act, enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Obama last December. This afternoon’s ruling came as part of a lawsuit brought by seven dissident plaintiffs — including Chris Hedges, Dan Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky, and Birgitta Jonsdottir — alleging that the NDAA violates “both their free speech and associational rights guaranteed by the First Amendment as well as due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

The ruling was a sweeping victory for the plaintiffs, as it rejected each of the Obama DOJ’s three arguments: (1) because none of the plaintiffs has yet been indefinitely detained, they lack “standing” to challenge the statute; (2) even if they have standing, the lack of imminent enforcement against them renders injunctive relief unnecessary; and (3) the NDAA creates no new detention powers beyond what the 2001 AUMF already provides.

This news is shocking. It now appears that the federal courts are not a tool box the executive branch may use whenever and for whatever it wants.

Filed under Quote of the Day Tagged with , , ,