Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 6 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 6 (12 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   14 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

The Obama Regime Has No Constitutional Scruples

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 11   News 7   Well Said 6  
View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H1 12/5/11

Become a Fan
  (385 fans)
- Advertisement -
Misreading the fight over military detention

During an interview with RT on December 1, I said that the US Constitution had been shredded by the failure of the US Senate to protect American citizens from the detainee amendment sponsored by Republican John McCain and Democrat Carl Levin to the Defense Authorization Bill. The amendment permits indefinite detention of US citizens by the US military.  I also gave my opinion that the fact that all but two Republican members of the Senate had voted to strip American citizens of their constitutional protections and of the protection of the Posse Comitatus Act indicated that the Republican Party had degenerated into a Gestapo Party.

These conclusions are self-evident, and I stand by them. 

However, I jumped to conclusions when I implied that the Obama regime opposes military detention on constitutional grounds. Ray McGovern and Glenn Greenwald might have jumped to the same conclusions.

An article by Dahlia Lithwick in Slate reported that the entire Obama regime opposed the military detention provision in the McCain/Levin amendment. Lithwick wrote:
"The secretary of defense, the director of national intelligence, the director of the FBI, the CIA director, and the head of the Justice Department's national security division have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the bill are a bad idea. And the White House continues to say that the president will veto the bill if the detainee provisions are not removed."

I checked the URLs that Lithwick supplied. It is clear that the Obama regime objects to military detention, and I mistook this objection for constitutional scruples. 

However, on further reflection I conclude that the Obama regime's objection to military detention is not rooted in concern for the constitutional rights of American citizens. The regime objects to military detention because the implication of military detention is that detainees are prisoners of war. As Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin put it: Should somebody determined ...
" be a member of an enemy force who has come to this nation or is in this nation to attack us as a member of a foreign enemy, should that person be treated according to the laws of war? The answer is yes."

Detainees treated according to the laws of war have the protections of the Geneva Conventions. They cannot be tortured. The Obama regime opposes military detention, because detainees would have some rights. These rights would interfere with the regime's ability to send detainees to CIA torture prisons overseas. This is what the Obama regime means when it says that the requirement of military detention denies the regime "flexibility."

The Bush/Obama regimes have evaded the Geneva Conventions by declaring that detainees are not POWs, but "enemy combatants," "terrorists," or some other designation that removes all accountability from the US government for their treatment. 

By requiring military detention of the captured, Congress is undoing all the maneuvering that two regimes have accomplished in removing POW status from detainees.

A careful reading of the Obama regime's objections to military detention supports this conclusion. The November 17 letter to the Senate from the Executive Office of the President says that the Obama regime does not want the authority it has under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Public Law 107-40, to be codified. Codification is risky, the regime says. ...
"After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country."

In other words, the regime is saying that under AUMF, the executive branch has total discretion as to who it detains and how it treats detainees. Moreover, as the executive branch has total discretion, no one can find out what the executive branch is doing, who detainees are, or what is being done to them. Codification brings accountability, and the executive branch does not want accountability.

Those who see hope in Obama's threatened veto have jumped to conclusions if they think the veto is based on constitutional scruples.
- Advertisement -

Dr. Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury for Economic Policy in the Reagan Administration. He was associate editor and columnist with the Wall Street Journal, columnist for Business Week and the Scripps Howard News Service. He is a contributing editor to Gerald Celente's Trends Journal. He has had numerous university appointments. His book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West is available here. His latest book,  How America Was Lost, has just been released and can be ordered here.

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Libya - The DC/NATO Agenda And The Next Great War

The Road to Armageddon

American Job Loss Is Permanent

A Story...The Last Whistleblower

Pakistan TV Report Contradicts US Claim of Bin Laden's Death


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
10 people are discussing this page, with 14 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

I am inclined to agree with you. Obama isn't the t... by Timothy Gatto on Monday, Dec 5, 2011 at 12:31:20 AM
Anyone that tries to restore legitimate government... by Mike Preston on Monday, Dec 5, 2011 at 12:38:40 AM
Mike, the population culling is indeed a key issue... by Peter Duveen on Monday, Dec 5, 2011 at 9:42:46 AM
Paul Craig Roberts once again leads us to the trut... by Joan Mootry on Monday, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:24:33 AM
As the nation takes the final turn on the corner o... by AAA AAA on Monday, Dec 5, 2011 at 8:20:22 AM
If the Senate fired themselves, not representing u... by Steven G. Erickson on Monday, Dec 5, 2011 at 8:44:58 AM
It seems to me that, according to the rules of war... by Peter Duveen on Monday, Dec 5, 2011 at 9:46:24 AM
Jeff Rock is right. It is a culling. But it isn't ... by Joan Mootry on Monday, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:16:02 AM
... so what now? How do we fight them? Please advi... by lila york on Monday, Dec 5, 2011 at 6:41:24 PM
but first and foremost  THERE MUST BE SAID OP... by Mark Sashine on Tuesday, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:57:06 AM
What is likely is that every American with the fin... by lila york on Tuesday, Dec 6, 2011 at 5:28:47 PM
Yes, such plan might work.   That's why ... by Mark Sashine on Tuesday, Dec 6, 2011 at 5:49:39 PM
As the old song says, or should say, "He's the dev... by Alan MacDonald on Monday, Dec 5, 2011 at 7:45:49 PM
Obama thinks Constitutional issues can be settled ... by Jack Heart on Tuesday, Dec 6, 2011 at 3:50:19 PM