THE LAST STRAW, OBAMA SIGNS THE DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL
Just hours before the New Year began, when the nation was on holiday, President Obama signed into law the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, a far-ranging, $662 billion bill that will bring changes in a number of areas.
Obama said he signed the bill with “serious reservations,” particularly over provisions that regulate detention, interrogation and prosecution of detainees.
Obama issued a signing statement, with this bill, practice he decried when his predecessor used them, but which he has used more than Bush in his first two years than Bush used in his eight years. See below where I comment on this practice.
The new law, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, provides more than $660 billion for military pay raises, weapon systems, military contracts and funding for the war in Afghanistan as well as certain provisons regarding how we treat US military detainees.
I predict that Obama will become as notorious as King John of England, in 1215, John, weakened by unpopular wars, high taxes and conflict with the Pope was forced to sign away his devine rights when he put his pen to the Magna Carta. In like manner, President Obama simillarly afflicted and weakened has given his reluctant assent to a law which will cost us billions weaken or abrogate the ancient protections of English civil law embodied in the same Magna Carta (and the Habeus Corpus Act of 1679) which John signed so long ago. History confirms what can happen when - as with King John- a weakened leader must curry favor with his detractors and face determined unprincipled political enemies. In the case of President Obama, who has not encountered a fight he would rather not engage in, and who has been faced with irresponsible adversaries --in the Republican party who are more interested in squeezing the president into a politically embarrassing corner than doing their best for the nation. Ahhh politics!!!
The law signed by Obama weakens the core principles which are embodied in our Bill of Rights and which were derived from ancient English law. The Magna Carta the "great document" of English law, originally drawn up in 1215 AD (and passed into law in 1225), remains one of the core precepts of Anglo-American jurisprudence. In Medieval England the English nobles forced a weakened King John to accept the fact that he did not have the authority to act arbitrarily against English subjects and could not mete out punishment except through established law of the land. That basic premise has remained a part of English law until today. And by the grace of the fact that we were once an English colony and subject to an English King that precept entered and remains a part of our system of laws.
In the late 14th century, two hundred years afster trhe after the Magna Carta was signed, the English also established what is known as the "Great Writ", or the right of Habeas Corpus (Latin: "you may have the body"). A "writ" is a legal manuver by which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention, ( a detention perhaps lacking sufficient cause or evidence). This remedy can be sought by the prisoner, or by another person coming to his or her aid. It has historically been an important legal instrument safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary action by the state. And is essentially a summons with the force of a court order. "It is addressed to a prison official, for example, and demands that a prisoner be taken before the court, and that the custodian of the person present proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether the custodian has lawful authority to detain the person. If the custodian does not have authority to detain the prisoner, then he must be released from custody. The prisoner, or another person acting on his or her behalf, may petition the court, or a judge, for a writ of habeas corpus. One reason for the writ to be sought by a person other than the prisoner is that the detainee might be held incommunicado. See Wikipedia "habeus corpus"
The right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus has nonetheless long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject. The jurist Albert Venn Dicey wrote that the British Habeas Corpus Acts "declare no principle and define no rights, but they are for practical purposes worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty". See Wikipedia "Writ of Habeus Corpus".
Another two hundred year later, in 1679, the Great Writ was revised and formalized into English law during the reign of King Charles II as the Habeas Corpus Act 1679. The Act of the Parliament formally defined and strengthened the ancient writ, to insure that persons unlawfully detained could not be ordered to be prosecuted before a court of law. The Act of 1679 which is cited as one of the most important statutes in English constitutional history. Though amended, it remains on the statute book (in the UK) to this day.
One would think that our President, Barak Obama, as a renowned legal and Constitutional scholar, (and Noble Peace Prize winner), would have great respect for and a thorough knowledge of these ancient and hard-won legal precedents which form the basis of our own freedoms. Yet just a few hours before the new year..while on vacation in Hawaii, our scholar-President “reluctantly” signed the flawed 2012 Defense Appropriations Bill into law.
The bill has unprecedented and dangerous clauses which undermine and weaken--the very legal basis of our freedoms and protections from tyranny. This signing will be recalled as one of Obama’s most shameful acts, for which he will be remembered for long after he is gone from office. Why is this signing so egregious? For three reasons 1) Obama’s complete capitulation to the bloated “defense” establishment and their corporatist, Republican supporters. 2) It's massive cost spits in the face of those who are concerned about our deficit and our present strained economy. 3) And his use of a signing statement as a way to camouflage his political timidity and hide the true evil effects of the bill. Here are a few of the highlights.
Internationally, the bill attempts to curb Iran’s nuclear enrichment program by outlining penalties against Iran’s central bank. The legislation also freezes some $700 million in assistance until Pakistan develops an acceptable strategy for dealing with improvised explosive devices. One positive element of the bill, but which does not justify its passage, orders the Defense Department to finance an independent assessment of overseas troop basing “in light of potential fiscal constraints and emerging national security requirements.”.
Other changes include reducing our half-a million man army by less than 3%, to a still bloated 547,000, while increasing the pay of active and reserve troops by nearly 2%. It also authorizes the Defense Department to conduct offensive operations in cyberspace. The stress our troops have been exposed to in the last decade is underscored by the incorporation in this bloated budget of some necessary mental health assessments for our troops. To be implemented before deployment and several months prior to deployment and a year and a half or longer before redeployment. The purpose is to identify post-traumatic stress disorder, suicidal tendencies and other behavioral health conditions. Though these efforts may identify the truly debilitated, a more meaningful action would make less not more use of our military which is supposed to be a "defense" force not an imperial shock troop. Our people are not mentally or psychologically prepared for service in occupational forces of an imperial guard. We are a peace loving people who seek only to expand democratic policies. Were we to limit the deployment of our young men and women to only those instances when our nation's homeland was truly threatened and our military were deployed for legitimate reasons we would have fewer such cases of dementia.
If that was not serious enough to cause the president to table the bill or outright veto it. There is more.This 2012 Defense Bill should have been vetoed. It has several dangerous provisons not the least of which is one that it would permit the president to incarcerate American citizens and throw away the key...no due process, no habeus corpus...no provision for the accused to be faced by his accuser. The bill requires that foreign fighters captured by the US be held in military custody, outside the reach of civilian law. (Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, not much of a historian or legal scholar himself though he ischairman of the powerful House Armed Services Committee, said the new law aimed to "offer a structure for holding those who would do us harm." McKeon (R-Santa Clarita) said the structure was one "both parties found preferable to the ad hoc course the White House has been on for nearly four years.") Obama--often referred to as a Constitutional scholar homself-- agreed with this provision. But his signing statement claimed he would "waive any military custody requirement if he decided that were the best course." But what does that mean? That just indicates his present disposition on this matter, it could change and so could the interpretation of those coming after him. But Obama, with a stroke of his pen, in Hawaii has overturned that long history of legal tradition for Americans. Does he not realize that--even if he were not to use these onerous provisions, some others would gladly implement them--they are there in the legislation--perhaps against their political enemies. Just take a look over your shoulder at the crowd in Iowa from which one of whom "may" become president. They are frightening. Can you imagine one of them as president in 2012 ! Then we will have Obama to blame for signing this bill.
In one provision which would have rightly barred the transfer of detainees to foreign countries--the notorious policy of sending detainees to black sites for interrogation and torture--a policy first used by George Bush--Obama used his signing statement to clainm thta he would ignore that provision since it "hinders the executive's ability to carry out its military, national security and foreign relation activities" i.e. his policy of rendition. A shameful statement for our President to make!
Internationally, the bill attempts to curb Iran’s nuclear enrichment program by outlining penalties against Iran’s central bank. The legislation also freezes some $700 million in assistance until Pakistan develops an acceptable strategy for dealing with improvised explosive devices. One positive element of the bill, but which does not justify its passage, orders the Defense Department to finance an independent assessment of overseas troop basing “in light of potential fiscal constraints and emerging national security requirements.”.
Other changes include reducing our half-a million man army by less than 3%, to a still bloated 547,000, while increasing the pay of active and reserve troops by nearly 2%. It also authorizes the Defense Department to conduct offensive operations in cyberspace. The stress our troops have been exposed to in the last decade is underscored by the incorporation in this bloated budget of some necessary mental health assessments for our troops. To be implemented before deployment and several months prior to deployment and a year and a half or longer before redeployment. The purpose is to identify post-traumatic stress disorder, suicidal tendencies and other behavioral health conditions. Though these efforts may identify the truly debilitated, a more meaningful action would make less not more use of our military which is supposed to be a "defense" force not an imperial shock troop. Our people are not mentally or psychologically prepared for service in occupational forces of an imperial guard. We are a peace loving people who seek only to expand democratic policies. Were we to limit the deployment of our young men and women to only those instances when our nation's homeland was truly threatened and our military were deployed for legitimate reasons we would have fewer such cases of dementia.
The most recent case underscoring the stress we have placed on our military in the last years of aggressive military adventurism came to light in the first days of the new year when a deranged former Army specialist with several tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, shot up a New Years eve party wounding four, then escaped to hide away in the forests of Mt Rainer National Park. There, blowing through a road block he cold bloodily shot and killed a young female National Park ranger the mother of three children. He escaped into the forest where he died in an ice choked winter stream of winter exposure--wearing only a T shirt, jeans and one sneaker. A sad story of what w can expect from the thousands of our troops suffering from stress and mental disorder. We asked them to fight in an unnecessary war. They know they were had. We will pay for the mess.
Let’s look at the economics---the price tag. It will cost six hundred and sixty billion dollars ($660,000,000,000) or two thirds of a trillion dollars, a figure which represents more than 4% of our GDP. That amount (annual military expenditure as a percent of GDP) is more than any other modern industrialized nation, (except for a few oil-rich Arab countries which we twist arms to buy our military hardware). In general terms, we spend by far more on our military than any other nation in the world. The next most militarized nation is China. But they spend a paltry 114 billion dollars on their forces, or less than one-fifth of our expenditure, or only less than 20 cents of every dollar we spend. In fact if we were to add up the actual military expeditures or all of our potential world “enemies” (let’s say:China, Russia, Iran) it would amount to only 174 billion r bout 26% or a bit more than one-fourth of what our expeditures are. Why do we do it? It can not be for simple“defense” as our Republican politicians like to claim. It makes no sense to spend so much out of proportion to the function we claim to be supporting. I prefer to see it as an ingrained tendency toward imperialism as well as a form of “social security” for the defense-industry consortium. Thus we can conclude that the expenditure is bloated in the extreme. Most observers conclude that we could probably slash that number in half and still be the top dog in the world.
On another count, let’s underscore the fact that 40% of the $660 billion price tag or more than a quarter of a trillion dollars ($ 264 billion) or nearly three hundred billion of that near-trillion dollars will have to be borrowed and paid for with interest by our children and grandchildren. For what? Will it make their future lives safer or better. I think not. We are mortgaging our children’s future incomes to swell the coffers of some corporatist in Washington. For those in the Republican Party, who would not lift a finger to continue aide to the unemployed, or help the ill and the elderly—if that expenditure would raise our deficit, this monstrous sum, about a third of our budget, is quite all right with them and the only complaints we hear from that quarter are that the sum is too little. At a time when we are laying off, teachers, librarians, policemen, and closing schools all over this nation, and the President and Congress are toying with which of the prime support strands of this country’s existing and notably skimpy social safety net (such as medicaid, medicare and social security) are to be cut, the President has the temerity to give the “defense” department carte blanche for more and better (?) bombs, planes, destroyers, drones and other hardware none of which will never figure into improvement of this nation’s dismayingly aged infrastructure, or to change its long term energy dependence on imports, increase domestic jobs—and provide impetus to our faltering economy. Why continue to support the bloated military-industrial complex up to just above the figure they demanded? Obama has no answer for us.
On another count, let’s underscore the fact that 40% of the $660 billion price tag or more than a quarter of a trillion dollars ($ 264 billion) or nearly three hundred billion of that near-trillion dollars will have to be borrowed and paid for with interest by our children and grandchildren. For what? Will it make their future lives safer or better. I think not. We are mortgaging our children’s future incomes to swell the coffers of some corporatist in Washington. For those in the Republican Party, who would not lift a finger to continue aide to the unemployed, or help the ill and the elderly—if that expenditure would raise our deficit, this monstrous sum, about a third of our budget, is quite all right with them and the only complaints we hear from that quarter are that the sum is too little. At a time when we are laying off, teachers, librarians, policemen, and closing schools all over this nation, and the President and Congress are toying with which of the prime support strands of this country’s existing and notably skimpy social safety net (such as medicaid, medicare and social security) are to be cut, the President has the temerity to give the “defense” department carte blanche for more and better (?) bombs, planes, destroyers, drones and other hardware none of which will never figure into improvement of this nation’s dismayingly aged infrastructure, or to change its long term energy dependence on imports, increase domestic jobs—and provide impetus to our faltering economy. Why continue to support the bloated military-industrial complex up to just above the figure they demanded? Obama has no answer for us.
And finally, the signing of this bill "with reservations" was a misleading, politically cowardly, self-serving act. The Constitution gives the President the right and responsibility to veto a bill. That is what the Founders planned, that the President as the representative of the people would have the final review of a piece of legislation. If he found its provisions to be unwarranted or unwise, or dangerous, it his, the President's, responsibility to reject the bill by vetoing it. But President Obama shirked his duty to the people. If the President had reservations he should have had the courage to veto the bill. I'm really sorry to have to say this but the President acted like a wimp, he signs this flawed bill, then presents some smarmy reasons why he should not have signed it. That is not the leadership we need now--or at any time. Obama has besmirched his brand with this last act--the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Get the picture?RJK
No comments:
Post a Comment