[LAAMN] Obama's attack on US civil liberties is par for the course in capitalism

[scotpeden]

Obama versus civil liberties
Posted on January 8, 2012 by dandelionsalad

Dandelion Salad
Editorial
SocialistWorker.org
Jan. 4, 2012

Far from being the exception, the undermining of constitutional rights is
standard operating procedure under capitalism, regardless of which
politicians are in charge.

THE U.S. military can indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without
trial–that’s the latest of our supposedly “inalienable rights”
sacrificed by the Democratic former constitutional law professor who
currently inhabits in the White House.

After promising during his campaign to roll back the abuses of the Bush
administration, Barack Obama has spent the last three years pushing
through attacks on civil liberties that Republicans could only dream
about. He is eliminating all doubts that the Democrats are as firmly
committed as the GOP to strengthening the national security state at the
expense of our rights.

As part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) signed into law
by Obama on December 31, the military–under the authority of the
president–is empowered to hold anyone “who was a part of or
substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces that
are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition
partners…without trial until the end of hostilities.”

According to legal scholar Jonathan Turley, the NDAA represents “one of
the greatest rollbacks of civil liberties in the history of our
country.”

Even the liberal New York Times, which regularly praises the Democratic
Obama administration, described Obama’s announcement that he would sign
the bill as “a complete political cave-in, one that reinforces the
impression of a fumbling presidency.”

The ACLU’s Laura Murphy pointed out that the last time Congress passed
indefinite detention legislation was the Internal Security Act of 1950,
passed during the McCarthy era. Then-President Harry Truman vetoed the
Internal Security Act of 1950, but Congress overrode the veto.

As Salon.com’s Glenn Greenwald wrote, the Internal Security Act:

    "authorized the imprisonment of Communists and other “subversives”
without the necessity of full trials or due process (many of the most
egregious provisions of that bill were repealed by the 1971
Non-Detention Act, and are now being rejuvenated by these “war on
terror” policies of indefinite detention). President Obama, needless
to say, is not Harry Truman. He’s not even the Candidate Obama of
2008, who repeatedly insisted that due process and security were not
mutually exclusive, and who condemned indefinite detention as “black
hole” injustice."

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

IN THE New York Times, Andrew Rosenthal wrote, “It’s stunning that the
president is willing to sign a bill that might effectively turn the right
of habeas corpus into a mere privilege–even for citizens.”

But it’s not so “stunning” once you compare this measure with the
Democrats’ record on civil liberties over the past several years–from
capitulation to the Bush administration on the USA PATRIOT Act and similar
abuses to their own measures during the Obama years.

Beyond Obama’s failure to honor his promise to close the U.S. prison
camp at Guantánamo Bay–thus embracing the idea of indefinite detention
of foreign nationals suspected of terrorism–his administration has
overseen a vast expansion of executive power and attacks on rights that
includes: failing to prosecute war crimes, whether committed by U.S.
soldiers or former Bush administration officials; continuing the use of
warantless surveillance; actively prosecuting Bradley Manning and other
whistleblowers who have exposed war crimes; carrying out unlawful
detentions on U.S. soil and repressive, illegal treatment of those accused
of “materially aiding” terrorists; massively expanding the use of
unmanned drones to attack and kill so-called “terrorists” (and, often,
innocent civilians who happen to get in the way); carrying out
extra-judicial assassinations of foreign nationals and at least one U.S.
citizen (Anwar al-Awlaki); defending the right of the president to do so
free from oversight by invoking “state secrets”; continuing the
prosecution of Arabs and Muslims in the U.S. on the flimsiest of evidence
for crimes like “material support” of terrorism.

In other words, the Obama administration has shown its willingness at
every step to trample civil liberties in the service of expanding
executive power–and justify it by invoking the “war on terror.”

Obama did attach a “signing statement” to the NDAA, proclaiming that
he doesn’t want to use the massive power which he was granting to not
only his own, but to successor, administrations. “I have signed this
bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that
regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected
terrorists,” he wrote.

But then why enshrine such heinous power into law? The answer is that
Obama is only too happy to have such a weapon at his disposal.

Even more laughable was Obama’s assertion that his administration’s
so-called accomplishments in the “war on terror” have “respected the
values that make our country an example for the world.”

Maybe an example of the ruthless pursuit of power. But not respect for
civil liberties or human rights.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

THE QUESTION some might be asking is how Obama–the former law professor
who promised to uphold the rule of law and protect civil liberties–could
have so fully embraced the policies he has?

The answer isn’t a personal failing on Obama’s part, but that he and
the Democratic Party are as committed as the Republicans to expanding and
upholding U.S. power around the globe as the Republicans. Part of ensuring
that is strengthening of the national security state to silence and
repress any perceived threats to that power–whether at home or abroad.

In the 1950s, such attacks were aimed at socialists and communists. Today,
the Obama administration claims its repressive laws are aimed at
“terrorists.” But combined with developments like an expansion of FBI
spying, they can and will be used to silence dissent at home.

Consider Obama’s former chief of staff and the current mayor of Chicago,
Rahm Emanuel. In preparation for planned protests against the NATO/G8
summit in Chicago in May, Emanuel is seeking permanent changes to city
ordinances that would: raise fees for violations of parade regulations
from the current $50 to a minimum of $1,000 per violation; double fines
for protesters accused of resisting or obstructing police; restrict to two
hours the time period for permitted demonstrations; restrict gatherings at
public parks and beaches; and allow Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy
to “deputize law enforcement personnel” and forge agreements with
state, federal and local law enforcement agencies.

Or remember the many instances over the past months in which peaceful
Occupy protesters were harassed, beaten, pepper-sprayed and summarily
arrested from coast to coast–for even attempting to exercise their right
to speak out against the system.

Far from being the exception, this is how the state operates in a
bourgeois democracy. Violence and coercion are used when necessary, and
stated principles of democracy are continuously undermined, regardless of
which party is in charge.

We’re encouraged to believe that the state stands above society as an
impartial arbiter. But at heart, the state in a capitalist society
protects those at the top–the 1 percent whose wealth dominates and
directs the way the state is run.

The war on our rights at home is connected to U.S. wars abroad–and the
pursuit of U.S. imperial interests around the globe.

Politicians from both sides of the aisle will claim to support and uphold
the Constitution, but as soon as ordinary people begin to exercise our
constitutional rights and agitate for change in a way that might actually
impact the system, our “rights” become expendable.

That’s why Obama’s decision to sign the NDAA into law was not
surprising in the end. But it’s important in the coming months for
activists to hold Obama accountable for his actions.

As Jonathan Turley rightly points out, beyond Obama’s specific shredding
of civil liberties, there is a broader danger–that those who might
otherwise speak out against such measures will keep quiet because the
Republicans, on the surface, seem so much more awful:

    [P]erhaps the biggest blow to civil liberties is what [Obama] has done
to the movement itself. It has quieted to a whisper, muted by the
power of Obama’s personality and his symbolic importance as the
first Black president as well as the liberal who replaced Bush…In
time, the election of Barack Obama may stand as one of the single most
devastating events in our history for civil liberties.

***

Readers are welcome to share and use material belonging to this site for
non-commercial purposes, as long as they are attributed to the author and
SocialistWorker.org.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:laamn-unsubscr...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:laamn-subscr...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:laamn-dig...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:laamn-ow...@egroups.com?subject=laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:la...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/laamn@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    laamn-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
    laamn-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    laamn-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/