A Song To Bring In The New Year ...

Colin Stetson, performing his song 'Judges.' Simply amazing. 

President Obama Signs NDAA, Includes Signing Statement In Opposition To Indefinite Detention Of American Citizens

President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act this afternoon. He included a signing statement that specifically addresses one of the bill's most controversial provisions, which authorizes the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial. Below is the the full text of the President's statement, with the relevant excerpts highlighted. 

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540:

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa’ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.

Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch’s processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.

Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.

Section 1028 modifies but fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch’s authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This hinders the executive’s ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and like section 1027, would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. In the event that the statutory restrictions in sections 1027 and 1028 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict.

Section 1029 requires that the Attorney General consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense prior to filing criminal charges against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals. I sign this based on the understanding that apart from detainees held by the military outside of the United States under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the provision applies only to those individuals who have been determined to be covered persons under section 1022 before the Justice Department files charges or seeks an indictment. Notwithstanding that limitation, this provision represents an intrusion into the functions and prerogatives of the Department of Justice and offends the longstanding legal tradition that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions should be vested with the Attorney General free from outside interference. Moreover, section 1029 could impede flexibility and hinder exigent operational judgments in a manner that damages our security. My Administration will interpret and implement section 1029 in a manner that preserves the operational flexibility of our counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, limits delays in the investigative process, ensures that critical executive branch functions are not inhibited, and preserves the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice.

Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.

My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.

BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE, December 31, 2011.

Where Republicans and Democrats Unite: Stifling Dissident Voices Within Their Own Parties

As GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul surges in the Iowa polls, his rivals have undertaken a concerted attack to ensure his defeat. Paul is certainly being targeted because he has a legitimate chance of winning the Iowa caucus. Yet his opponents aren't simply drawing policy distinctions between themselves and Paul. His opponents have deemed him unelectable. They've denounced his policies as dangerous. Newt Gingrich even questioned whether he would vote for Paul if he in fact won the GOP nomination. Their attacks have become increasingly vicious, and convey the seriousness of the threat that Paul poses to the GOP establishment.

Paul espouses ideas that are firmly rooted in the libertarian philosophy. He doesn't pick and choose his ideology like most of the GOP candidates who favor a mix of laissez-faire economics, broad government intervention into personal matters (marriage, abortion), and unfettered state power for matters involving national security and foreign policy. And that is why Paul poses such a threat to the Republican establishment. He is the only candidate to speak out against imperialism, monopolistic capitalism, and the assault on civil liberties stemming from the 'war on terror.' In other words, he has been fighting against his own party's platform, and the pet issues of its primary supporters.

Thus, Paul's opponents are attempting to marginalize him. The attacks on Paul are actually quite similar to those that the Democratic Party has mounted against liberal voices. Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who has frequently taken stances in opposition to his party, has been attacked by fellow Democrats, stifled as a presidential candidate, and had many of his legislative efforts (like the impeachment of President Bush) tabled by party leaders. As a general matter, voices on the Left have no place in the Democratic party, nor do their ideas receive any recognition from its leaders. Much of the same goes for libertarians within the GOP. Democrats and Republicans in fact operate in a similar manner when it comes to dissident voices within their respective parties. They don't even bother paying lip service to their views for fear of upsetting the real core of influence within the parties: corporate money. 

And that is the real reason that Paul is being bombarded by his own party. He is indeed dangerous. He poses a threat to the traditional power structure of the GOP and the status of its most influential supporters. Paul, like Kucinich, refuses to play by party rules. That is why he is so popular, and also why he will ultimately lose. 

New York Times on Ron Paul ...

News outlets have begun to take a closer look at some of Ron Paul's more controversial views, as well as his associations with, and support from, far-right extremist groups. The New York Times has a nice writeup on Paul. You can read the article here.

American Exceptionalism In An Era Of Human Liberation

 

There is a democratic revolution sweeping the globe. People from Russia, Syria, and other countries have taken to the streets to protest the authoritarian regimes that rule their respective countries. Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya are transitioning to democracy after successfully ousting their ruling dictators. This wave of uprisings promises to liberate millions of people.

The opposite is true in the United States. Americans are once again flirting with electing an openly anti-democratic President. They were fatigued after eight years of authoritarian rule under the Bush administration. They sought, albeit momentarily, to re-establish rule of law and democratic principles that once defined their nation. 

The American people's illiberal tendencies quickly resurfaced, however, after electing Barack Obama in 2008. In 2010, voters ushered in one of the most reactionary Congresses in the nation's history. While apparently suffering from collective amnesia, they elected representatives who ran on platforms that promised to gut the very social policies and legal principles that are necessary to maintain a democracy. And polls show an increasingly tight race between President Obama and one of several frightening Republican presidential candidates. This isn't surprising. These are, after all, the same people who embraced an ideology of fear and re-elected George W. Bush despite his administration's war on civil liberties, human rights, and rule of law, i.e., the "War on Terror."

This is, in fact, the true nature of American Exceptionalism. The term is generally used to describe the U.S. as being fundamentally different, and ultimately superior, to other nations. Its recent political developments have shown the dark side to this idea. While people from other nations are demanding freedom, respect for human rights, democracy, equal distribution of resources, and social programs to ameliorate poverty, Americans are running in the opposite direction. In an era of human liberation, they buck the trend and clamor for oppression.

$469 Billion: How Much Americans Will Spend Shopping During This Holiday Season (and what else you could buy with that much money)

Americans are expected to spend $469 billion shopping this holiday season. This is an astounding figure. For everyone out there who wants to "keep the Christ in Christmas," perhaps it's time for you to channel your outrage toward consumers, and away from people who opt for the phrase 'happy holidays." Are we really worshiping the Lord, who said "[i]f you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven," (Matthew 19:21), or simply worshiping consumption?

In honor of our annual shopping ritual, let's take a look at some other things that we could buy instead:

• $30 billion: Add this to what the world already spends on water safety, and every single person would have access to safe drinking water. Eighty percent of diseases in developing countries are caused by contaminated water. Over 2 million people are killed each year due to the use of contaminated water, most being children under the age of five.  
• $600 million: This would pay for the surgeries of the estimated 2 million women in the developing world who are living with fistulas, an injury that occurs during childbirth in which a hole is created "between the birth passage and an internal organ such as the bladder or rectum." The UNFPA provides a description of the effects of fistulas: "The smell of leaking urine or faeces, or both, is constant and humiliating, often driving loved ones away. Left untreated, fistula can lead to chronic medical problems, including ulcerations, kidney disease, and nerve damage in the legs." If Americans donated one-tenth of 1% of what they spent on holiday shopping this year, we would be able to alleviate much of the suffering these women face.
•  $175 billion per year, for 20 years: In his book "The End of Poverty," economist Jeffrey Sachs estimated that with this amount, we could end extreme poverty in the world. In other words, if Americans spent only $294 billion during the holiday season over the next two decades, nearly one billion people suffering from hunger would have adequate food sources; the estimated 600 million people who survive on less than $1 would see a dramatic improvement in their standards of living. 
•  $496 billion: This figure is admittedly a little more than Americans spend on holiday shopping, but not by much. With this amount, we could pay for every one of the U.S.' safety net programs, such as food stamps, heating assistance, free and reduced price school meals, childcare assistance, low-income housing assistance, earned income tax credits, cash assistance, and unemployment insurance. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that these programs "kept approximately 15 million Americans out of poverty in 2005 and reduced the depth of poverty for another 29 million people." And that was before the recession hit.  

In other words, it's safe to say that our money could be better spent, and spent in a manner that honors the spirit of Christmas.

Syrian Massacre: With Violence Increasing, Security Council Must Act

More than 200 people have been killed in Syria over the last two days, many of them reportedly army defectors. The UN estimates that at least 5,000 people have been killed since protests against the Assad regime began. Arab League observers are expected to arrive in the country shortly to monitor the situation. Protesters are, however, skeptical that their presence will have much of an effect.

The Assad government has responded to popular uprisings by engaging in violent and systematic attacks against its population, and using state sovereignty to shield itself from accountability. It is time for the UN Security Council to take action. The council has a duty to maintain peace and security. It can no longer stand by idly as the Syrian people are killed. If strong and unified action isn't taken immediately, the violence while continue to escalate.

A potential solution is for the Security Council to deploy a peacekeeping force to quell the violence. The Syrian government (and presumably the opposition) would have to consent to the peacekeepers' presence. This wouldn't be unprecedented, as a peacekeeping force, the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF), has been in Syria since 1974 to maintain the peace and supervise the disengagement between Syria and Israel in the Golan Heights.

At bottom, peacekeepers are used to protect and promote human rights. These are the very rights that the Syrian protesters are trying to exercise, and the Assad regime is trying to suppress. If the Security Council does indeed take action, it should strongly consider deploying a peacekeeping operation to prevent the situation in Syria from deteriorating further.

A Song for the Evening ...

'Harlem Streets,' by Immortal Technique. The late Roc Raida on the cut.

And Now He's Dead ...

Kim Jong-il, North Korea's "Dear Leader," has died of a massive heart attack. He is said to have been 69 years old, though there's some debate as to his actual age.

Kim has been the country's leader since 1994. He assumed the position upon his father Kim Il-sung's death, who led the country since its founding in 1948. Kim Il-sung remains North Korea's "Eternal President."

Kim oversaw one of the world's most oppressive governments. He, like his father, devoted most of the state's resources to military spending (North Korea has the fifth largest military in the world, one of the worst human rights records. The two are inextricably linked). The country's military-first policy continued even as famine spread throughout the country during the 90's. An estimated two million people died as a result.

Hundreds of thousands of North Koreans are locked up in prisons. Tens of thousands are held in concentration camps. They are subjected to continuous propaganda from state-run media, and live amidst a climate of fear. These elements aid in perpetuating the cult of personality cultivated by Kim Il-sung and continued by Kim Jong-il.

North Korea is a fascinating country, both because of its isolation to the rest of the world and the oppressive conditions its people endure. I am hopeful, but not optimistic, that Kim's death will afford the people of North Korea an opportunity to bring an end to their suffering.

Below is a video of the country's odd, yet awe-inspiring, Arirang Festival.

.

Film the Police ...

In light of militarized police forces' crackdowns on the Occupy movement, Sage Francis and company present a timely rendition of NWA's "Fuck tha Police."

A Song for the Evening ...

Bjork, performing 'Unison' at the Royal Opera House in London.

OWS and the Class Divide

Occupy protesters gather to disrupt Port of Oakland (LA Times)

If you're a victim of the "Great Recession," you've likely received many words of encouragement from family, friends, and acquaintances. Their words are both sincere and well-intentioned. You can't help but notice, however, the disconnect between yourself and those with relatively good fortune who offer encouragement. If you've been participating in Occupy events as a means to redress your grievances, you may have sensed a similar disconnect between yourself and the more affluent (and perhaps relatively unengaged) supporters of the movement. Your suffering, as well as your actions in protest of such suffering, seems little more than an abstraction to most.

The Occupy protests are not theater, nor are the general assemblies mere academic exercises. If you're a part of this collective, you understand that. You have the benefit, if you can even call it that, of being on the ground. Occupy movements are emerging throughout the country in response to the grim reality that more and more people are facing. The Occupation is, at this particular moment, a movement of solidarity to which very few can relate. Yet as the transformation of the economy nears completion, that will begin to change. The class of persons affected by the economic injustice inherent in American capitalism will expand. The misery will spread. 

For the victims, hardship infects every aspect of life. Relationships are poisoned. Sustenance overshadows all else. Millions are arrested by the tyranny of the moment. Words of encouragement are of no particular use. They can even invoke hostility. Telling someone who has exhausted every option to improve his or her situation to "hang in there" isn't very comforting. Yet now, because of OWS and its progeny, people have an outlet to demand justice with others who share a common experience.

The concept of solidarity within mass movements presents difficulties. People who are engaging in a struggle need others to recognize and support them. At the same time, people co-opt movements for reasons unrelated to the original core principles. This was common during the anti-war movement of the 1960's, where some used the protests as an outlet for self-expression (a theater of the self) while ignoring the underlying purposes of the demonstrations. A similar phenomenon is happening with Occupy Wall Street.

Let's face it: class shapes our experiences and affects our understanding and perceptions of others. For those who are unemployed or have lost their homes - some of your fellow protesters don't really know what you're going through, but their support is both sincere and vital to the movement's success. And for those who go to an Occupy event every now and then, but can go home at night and have a job waiting for you in the morning - understand that however much you support your fellow protesters, you are not necessarily in the same boat.

We must empathize with each other and work to bridge the class divides that exist within the Occupy Movement. Our different life experiences can strengthen the movement, but only if we understand and appreciate that diversity.

A Basic Premise of Democratic Governance, Lost

 

For a democracy to function properly, the people must be armed with information. Governments must operate openly and disseminate accurate information to the public. Politicians must truthfully articulate their policy stances, and base them on reason and fact. We are no longer afforded these requirements which are necessary to sustain a democratic system of government.

The problem isn't that politicians lie. It's that they (usually) don't. They articulate ideas and arguments that can be neither proved nor disproved. They've basically adapted the advertising model to politics. The people are left to decide not which politician is telling the truth, but which politician sounded most authentic, which presidential candidate looked more "presidential." During post-debate analyses, pundits rarely consider which candidates' claims were true. They examine who was more convincing. Our closed political system enables, indeed demands, such a conversation. 

Newt Gingrich's ascendency to the GOP presidential nomination perfectly illustrates this phenomenon. Gingrich, who George Will described as "the classic rental politician," maintains loyalty only to power. His stances on issues are at best schizophrenic, at worst for sale to the highest bidder. Yet, at this particular moment, he is winning the audition to be the GOP nominee. His truthfulness is irrelevant. He is the most authentic character of the nomination reality show. 

The problem of fact-less politics is now systemic. To reverse this trend, the public must take to the streets and turn to the polls with a basic demand of information. But until then, let's see who gets voted off the island next.

A Song for the Evening ...

tUnE-yArDs' 'Bizness'

 

Coming Up on Last Throes ...

I've been very interested in class and socioeconomic diversity lately. I'm preparing a couple pieces centered around this topic. Stay tuned.