by Paul Seymour, Director of Client Services
How Much Freedom Have You Lost?
Last week I shared some very personal information (Subject of a Tyrannical State, or Citizen of a Democratic Republic?) intended to give a name and a face to some of the damage done by abuses of power which have become routine in the States. I immediately got one angry, and emotional reply from a guy named Mitch, who was ranting and raving as though he somehow thought I was attacking the Democratic party, and therefore supporting the Republican one. Apparently that conclusion was reached due to the mocking photo of Obama as a Banana Republican, rather than due to any understanding of what I’d written.
In case it isn’t obvious, I’d like to clarify that I personally believe that the US has essentially become a one-party State, which merely elects a figure head for the unelected bureaucrats, PAC (political action committee) members, including the MIC, and Corporate leaders who actually run the country for their personal gain. About twenty years ago Ross Perot spent a great deal of his personal fortune trying to make a difference in that trend by running for President based on a platform of reforms, primarily in the form of the following two simple changes:
1) Implement term limits in Congress, thereby doing away with professional politicians, and,
2) Outlawing PAC’s
Very sensible, and would’ve gone a very long way in impeding the rampant corruption that now grips Washington DC. However, in much the same as Ron Paul’s bid for President was essentially squashed by the corporate run media, the sheeple were then convinced that a vote for Perot was a wasted vote, because he couldn’t win. Obviously, the point of voting isn’t to be on the side of the winner, but to actually vote for the most qualified person for the job. That’s just pie-in-the-sky idealism, I realize.
I personally thought the last Republican in office, George II, was absolutely the worst president in American history. I actually was quite hopeful when Obama won based on his proposed reforms, and apparent freedom-loving principles. When it became obvious that he was, in many ways, at least regarding civil liberties, just another George II with more grey matter and charisma, I’ve come to the conclusion that George II is no longer the worst president in American history. At least he was honest about his fascist beliefs. Obama simply lies. One example—he very clearly said that he would veto the NDAA if it included the indefinite detention clause. Instead, he clandestinely signed it into law on either New Year’s Eve, or early the following morning. I’ve forgotten which.
Let’s face it, the most powerful man on Earth hasn’t been able to figure out, within four years, what to do with a 100 or so guys being held without trial by the US military, in brutal conditions, down on a Caribbean island. That, despite the fact that he very explicitly promised to do so, correctly identifying it as a National embarrassment. Therefore I’m forced to conclude that he’s either a bald-faced liar, or extremely inept. Either way, the sheeple should have obviously re-elected him, just as they did George II.
Mitch went on to repeatedly ask me to name just one single freedom that we’ve lost under Obama. I reminded him that my entire article was dedicated to the demonstrable facts that those who have sworn oaths to protect it, have systematically been shredding the US Constitution over the past decade or more, including the past four years. Especially with the very basic right of simple due process. Indefinite detention, and the no fly list being just two glaring examples that due process is at the very least, vastly eroded.
In fact, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to simply leave the formerly great America, and just be left alone to live in peace. Last week’s article (IRS: No One is Too Old, Too Poor or Too Sympathetic to Avoid Prosecution) about the 79 year-old lady getting convicted of a felony by the IRS for money held overseas (including a 4,000% fine and possible jail sentence) being an example. In case there are other readers who are unaware that those who’ve taken an oath to protect the Constitution have done exactly the opposite, here’s an article written last year by Jonathan Turley, and published in the Washington Post that might remind you of the facts. Therefore, in response to Mitch’s demand to mention just one single freedom that US citizens have lost under Obama. Here are a couple of handfuls.
10 Reasons The U.S. Is No Longer The Land Of The Free
Published, January 15, 2012
Below is today’s column in the Sunday Washington Post. The column addresses how the continued rollbacks on civil liberties in the United States conflicts with the view of the country as the land of the free. If we are going to adopt Chinese legal principles, we should at least have the integrity to adopt one Chinese proverb: “The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names.” We seem as a country to be in denial as to the implications of these laws and policies. Whether we are viewed as a free country with authoritarian inclinations or an authoritarian nation with free aspirations (or some other hybrid definition), we are clearly not what we once were. [Update: in addition to the column below, a later column in the Washington Post explores more closely the loss of free speech rights in the West].
Every year, the State Department issues reports on individual rights in other countries, monitoring the passage of restrictive laws and regulations around the world. Iran, for example, has been criticized for denying fair public trials and limiting privacy, while Russia has been taken to task for undermining due process. Other countries have been condemned for the use of secret evidence and torture.
Even as we pass judgment on countries we consider unfree, Americans remain confident that any definition of a free nation must include their own — the land of free. Yet, the laws and practices of the land should shake that confidence. In the decade since Sept. 11, 2001, this country has comprehensively reduced civil liberties in the name of an expanded security state. The most recent example of this was the National Defense Authorization Act, signed Dec. 31, which allows for the indefinite detention of citizens. At what point does the reduction of individual rights in our country change how we define ourselves?
While each new national security power Washington has embraced was controversial when enacted, they are often discussed in isolation. But they don’t operate in isolation. They form a mosaic of powers under which our country could be considered, at least in part, authoritarian. Americans often proclaim our nation as a symbol of freedom to the world while dismissing nations such as Cuba and China as categorically unfree. Yet, objectively, we may be only half right. Those countries do lack basic individual rights such as due process, placing them outside any reasonable definition of “free,” but the United States now has much more in common with such regimes than anyone may like to admit.
These countries also have constitutions that purport to guarantee freedoms and rights. But their governments have broad discretion in denying those rights and few real avenues for challenges by citizens — precisely the problem with the new laws in this country.
The list of powers acquired by the U.S. government since 9/11 puts us in rather troubling company.
Assassination of U.S. citizens
President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)
Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism. While Sen. Carl Levin insisted the bill followed existing law “whatever the law is,” the Senate specifically rejected an amendment that would exempt citizens and the Administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal court. The Administration continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for “prolonged detention.”)
The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections. Bush claimed this authority in 2001, and Obama has continued the practice. (Egypt and China have been denounced for maintaining separate military justice systems for selected defendants, including civilians.)
The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens’ finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records. The government can use “national security letters” to demand, without probable cause, that organizations turn over information on citizens — and order them not to reveal the disclosure to the affected party. (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan operate under laws that allow the government to engage in widespread discretionary surveillance.)
The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts. It also forces the dismissal of cases against the United States by simply filing declarations that the cases would make the government reveal classified information that would harm national security — a claim made in a variety of privacy lawsuits and largely accepted by federal judges without question. Even legal opinions, cited as the basis for the government’s actions under the Bush and Obama administrations, have been classified. This allows the government to claim secret legal arguments to support secret proceedings using secret evidence. In addition, some cases never make it to court at all. The federal courts routinely deny constitutional challenges to policies and programs under a narrow definition of standing to bring a case.
The world clamored for prosecutions of those responsible for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, but the Obama administration said in 2009 that it would not allow CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for such actions. This gutted not just treaty obligations but the Nuremberg principles of international law. When courts in countries such as Spain moved to investigate Bush officials for war crimes, the Obama administration reportedly urged foreign officials not to allow such cases to proceed, despite the fact that the United States has long claimed the same authority with regard to alleged war criminals in other countries. (Various nations have resisted investigations of officials accused of war crimes and torture. Some, such as Serbia and Chile, eventually relented to comply with international law; countries that have denied independent investigations include Iran, Syria and China.)
The government has increased its use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has expanded its secret warrants to include individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations. In 2011, Obama renewed these powers, including allowing secret searches of individuals who are not part of an identifiable terrorist group. The administration has asserted the right to ignore congressional limits on such surveillance. (Pakistan places national security surveillance under the unchecked powers of the military or intelligence services.)
Immunity from judicial review
Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy. (Similarly, China has maintained sweeping immunity claims both inside and outside the country and routinely blocks lawsuits against private companies.)
Continual monitoring of citizens
The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review. It is not defending the power before the Supreme Court — a power described by Justice Anthony Kennedy as “Orwellian.” (Saudi Arabia has installed massive public surveillance systems, while Cuba is notorious for active monitoring of selected citizens.)
The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects. The Obama administration says it is not continuing the abuses of this practice under Bush, but it insists on the unfettered right to order such transfers — including the possible transfer of U.S. citizens.
These new laws have come with an infusion of money into an expanded security system on the state and federal levels, including more public surveillance cameras, tens of thousands of security personnel and a massive expansion of a terrorist-chasing bureaucracy.
Some politicians shrug and say these increased powers are merely a response to the times we live in. Thus, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) could declare in an interview last spring without objection that “free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war.” Of course, terrorism will never “surrender” and end this particular “war.”
Other politicians rationalize that, while such powers may exist, it really comes down to how they are used. This is a common response by liberals who cannot bring themselves to denounce Obama as they did Bush. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), for instance, has insisted that Congress is not making any decision on indefinite detention: “That is a decision which we leave where it belongs — in the executive branch.”
And in a signing statement with the defense authorization bill, Obama said he does not intend to use the latest power to indefinitely imprison citizens. Yet, he still accepted the power as a sort of regretful autocrat.
An authoritarian nation is defined not just by the use of authoritarian powers, but by the ability to use them. If a president can take away your freedom or your life on his own authority, all rights become little more than a discretionary grant subject to executive will.
The framers lived under autocratic rule and understood this danger better than we do. James Madison famously warned that we needed a system that did not depend on the good intentions or motivations of our rulers: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”
Benjamin Franklin was more direct. In 1787, a Mrs. Powel confronted Franklin after the signing of the Constitution and asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got — a republic or a monarchy?” His response was a bit chilling: “A republic, Madam, if you can keep it.”
Since 9/11, we have created the very government the framers feared: a government with sweeping and largely unchecked powers resting on the hope that they will be used wisely.
The indefinite-detention provision in the defense authorization bill seemed to many civil libertarians like a betrayal by Obama. While the president had promised to veto the law over that provision, Levin, a sponsor of the bill, disclosed on the Senate floor that it was in fact the White House that approved the removal of any exception for citizens from indefinite detention.
Dishonesty from politicians is nothing new for Americans. The real question is whether we are lying to ourselves when we call this country the land of the free.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University.
Washington Post (Sunday) January 15, 2012
Anyone who can read that and not be reminded of our former enemies, such as the Nazi Germany, or the Soviet Union, are just beyond reason, in my opinion. I enjoy remembering our brave ancestors by recalling some of their mottos. My favorite being “Live Free or Die”, as I firmly believe in that myself. However, after reading the above, that sounds like a suicide pact. It became obvious to me several years ago, that the only way to currently live free, is to get the hell out of the formerly great US of A. As they say “love it or leave it”. I think they’re right, and apparently, one might want to start doing so with some sense of urgency.