Home RSS  Gold   Silver  Join Follow About  Contact Publish Donate! Help
Mathaba.Net Mathaba - bypass the gate-keepers 
Printable version See our news feeds? toolbar

  Human Rights Comment


Ten reasons the US is no longer The Land Of The Free

Posted: 2012-07-25
From: Source
    Share on TwitterFacebook
Americans Need to Look in the Mirror


Includes commentary from the Washington Post

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 (other) nations 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.


Guantanamo Bay - An indelible blot of shame and inhumanity on the USA.

  • Assassination of U.S. Citizens - or Anyone, Anywhere

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.

The only other country to have institutionalised this process is Israel.

  • Indefinite detention

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 the administration claims that this provision only codified existing law, experts widely contest this view, and the administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal courts. The government continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion.

  • Arbitrary justice

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.

  • Warrantless searches

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.


It's OK if I do it.

  • Secret evidence

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.

  • War crimes

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 (pressured) 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.

  • Secret court

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.

  • 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.


Not all Americans like losing their basic rights and freedoms.

  • 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.

  • Extraordinary renditions

The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition.

This 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.


And these are the lies told about the "War on Terror" - the war that will never end because there is no enemy conquer.

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.



Those who think the US values human rights should read the following:

Besides Guantanamo, Afghanistan and Iraq, HRC said the CIA runs scores of offshore secret prisons in over 66 countries worldwide for dissidents and alleged terrorists — in Egypt, Algeria, Jordan, Morocco, Syria, Libya, Tunisia, India, Pakistan, Russia, Uzbekistan, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Ethopia, Djibouti, Kenya, Poland, Romania, Bosnia, Kosovo, Thailand, Diego Garcia, and elsewhere.

Post-9/11, "the United States embarked on a process of reducing and removing various human rights and other protection mechanisms" through numerous laws and administrative acts including:

  • The September 18, 2001 joint House-Senate Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) for "the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States";

  • The October 2001 USA Patriot Act (just renewed) that shredded civil liberty protections, including due process, freedom of association, and the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures;

  • The October 2002 House-Senate “Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of the United States Armed Forces Against Iraq,” even though the country (and Afghanistan) posed no threat to America, had no ability or intention to strike, or did so on 9/11 or any other time;

  • The November 2001 Military Order Number 1 authorizing the president to capture, kidnap or otherwise arrest non-citizens (and later citizens) anywhere in the world for any reason and hold them indefinitely without charge, evidence, or due process and judicial fairness protections in a civil court;

  • Numerous presidential Executive Orders, memorandums, findings, National and Homeland Security Presidential Directives, and other documents authorizing the abduction, detention, torture, and killing of alleged terrorists;

  • National Presidential Directive 51 granting the president dictatorial power to declare a national emergency, followed by martial law without congressional approval;

  • The February 2002, a presidential memorandum declaring Geneva’s Common Article 3 (prohibiting torture and other lawless acts) and Third Geneva, pertaining to prisoners of war, null and void for "al-Qaeda or Taliban detainees;"

  • The November 2002 Homeland Security Act creating a national Gestapo;

  • The 2005 Detainee Treatment Act denying detainees habeas rights and authorizing the use of cruel, abusive, inhumane or degrading treatment in the interests of national security;

  • The 2006 Military Commissions Act, known as "the torture authorization act," granted the executive sweeping unconstitutional powers to detain, interrogate and prosecute alleged terror suspects and collaborators (including US citizens), imprison them indefinitely in military prisons without proof of guilt, and deny them habeas and judicial fairness protections; and

  • Various other actions subverting the letter and spirit of international and US laws to pursue a global war on terror, including worldwide detention centers, claiming human rights laws there don’t apply.

    "One of the consequences of this policy was that many detainees were kept secretly and without access to the protection accorded to those in custody" under international and US laws.

Help free independent truth media to stay alive, support us!

spacer
Twitter Facebook
Related: 
#
  Is this item incorrect? Please click here to report it!  
 E-MAIL THIS    COMMENT ON THIS    HOME PAGE    PRINT THIS   Printable version Share on Facebook Share on Twitter    Email this article
    REDDIT    DIGG    DELICIO.US   FACEBOOK   RE-TWEET it!    MANY MORE OPTIONS... 

 View and/or Add Comments to this Article 

The link for this item is: www.mathaba.net/news/?x=630886   Copyrights!  
Send this article via Outlook or via web/other Email
Mathaba relies on your support for independent as well as investigative journalism. Please subscribe for a small fee and also join our free Daily Briefing. More options here.

:: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
::  We always mention the author and link the original site and page of every article. Disclaimer




MAIN INDEX PAGE
ALL TOPICS
NEWS ALERTS!

Mathaba Google
Advertise here
Follow us on Twitter


heyu

INFO PARTNERS:^ TOP ^
USEFUL LINKS:^ TOP ^

Webutation Score

Free Web Stats


Check out our Android App!
spacer
RSS Facebook Twitter
  Mathaba Now: click here Reader Information
search

get our free news alerts

Get our daily briefing!

Enter your email address:

Not sure? Try it out! Each Email has an easy unsubscribe link. Or find out why you should sign up:

See Reader Testimonials

Important information tools!
Most Commented:

Recently Commented:


Live chat services by Olark






China Wholesale


Follow Mathaba