Defense Act Affirms Indefinite Detention of US Citizens

Friday, December 30, 2011 by Inter Press Service

by Matthew Cardinale 

 

ATLANTA, Georgia - Civil liberties groups and many citizen activists are outraged over language in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA) that appears to lay the legal groundwork for indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial.

David Gespass, president of the National Lawyers Guild, called it an "enormous attack on the U.S. and our heritage" and a "significant step" towards fascism, in an interview with IPS.

"For a very long time the U.S. has been moving towards what I personally think of as fascist - the integration of monopoly capital with state power, that's combined with an increased repression at home and greater aggression around the world. I don't think we're there yet, but I do see that we're going in that direction," Gespass said. "I think the... act is a significant step in that direction."

"It's quite severe. If this continues, people will not be able to count on constitutional protections at all," Debra Sweet, national director of the group World Can't Wait, told IPS.

Subtitle D of the act contains several controversial provisions on indefinite detention of terrorism suspects.

The executive branch - starting with the George W. Bush administration shortly after Sept. 11, 2001 - began indefinitely detaining terrorism suspects without trial at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
When those detentions were challenged in the courts, the federal government argued that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), passed by the U.S. Congress on Sep. 18, 2001, allowed for the detentions to occur. In 2004, the Supreme Court agreed in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

"I know a lot of people who voted in favour of it (AUMF) back then didn't think they voted in favor of what ended up happening, but what it said is the president is authorized (to do) whatever is necessary," Gespass said. "The language as I recall it is not at all restrictive."

The current language in the NDAA seeks to legislatively affirm that the U.S. has the right to detain people, even though the courts already ruled, at least in the case of Hamdi, a prisoner captured during armed conflict in Afghanistan, that it already has that power.

Section 1021 defines who can be detained by the military.

The definition of "covered persons" under the provision includes not only those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2011, but also "a person 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, including anyone who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."

Critics say problems with this language include the vagueness of the terms "substantial support", "belligerent act", or "directly supported".

Moreover, because the act allows for individuals suspected of support or belligerence to be held indefinitely without trial - until the end of the "war on terror", which could be never - there could be no opportunities for these individuals to challenge the vagueness of the charges against them.

Section 1021(e) says the act does not alter any rights of U.S. citizens, meaning that the Bill of Rights of the Constitution remains "intact." It might be up to the courts, however, to eventually determine whether the application of these NDAA provisions to a U.S. citizen would be constitutional.

However, if they are being detained indefinitely with no lawyer, then how does anyone know they are there, to appeal to the civilian courts on their behalf?

Another section says "the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States". It does not say military custody is not an option; merely that it is not required.

The NDAA, as negotiated between the U.S. House and Senate, passed the U.S. House 283-136 on Dec. 14. It passed the U.S. Senate, in a vote of 86 to 13, on Dec. 15, with both Democrats and Republicans among those opposing it.

The bill was presented to President Barack Obama on Dec. 21 and signed Dec. 31, 2011.

However, numerous members of Congress have raised concerns.

Prior to its passage, on Dec. 12, Representatives Hank Johnson, Martin Heinrich and 30 others sent a letter to the chairs and ranking members of the U.S. House and Senate's respective Armed Services Committees.

They expressed their opposition to "an expansive authorization for detention of and use of military force against broadly defined adversaries substantially exceeding the scope of such authorizations already in law."

"The expanded authority has no geographical limits, provides authority for open-ended armed conflict, and is unacceptably broad," they wrote.

The NDAA "authorizes indefinite military detention of suspected terrorists without protecting U.S. citizens' right to trial," they wrote.
"We are deeply concerned that this provision could undermine the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth amendment rights of U.S. citizens who might be subjects of detention or prosecution by the military," they wrote.

On Dec. 15, Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011 (DPGA), with 15 co-sponsors.

This legislation states, "An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention."

A companion piece was introduced in the U.S. House on Dec. 16; it has 29 co-sponsors.

Meanwhile, in Montana, activists have begun an effort to recall their entire Congressional delegation for supporting the NDAA.

GOP Plan to Run Fake Democratic Candidates

by: Monica Davey, The New York Times News ServiceWednesday 8 June 2011

Madison, Wisconsin - The gears of government tend to grind slowly. But in Wisconsin lately they are racing at turbocharged speed.

In just the last few weeks, Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, has signed legislation to require voters to show photo identification cards at the polls and to deregulate elements of the telecommunications industry. And the Republican-dominated Legislature is now in the midst of advancing provisions to expand school vouchers, to allow people to carry concealed weapons, to cut financing for Planned Parenthood and to bar illegal immigrants from paying in-state tuition at Wisconsin’s universities.

Why the urgency? Republicans, who suddenly swept into control of this Capitol in last fall’s elections, face a deadline of sorts. Though the lawmakers insist that their hurry-up offense is just living up to campaign promises, there is a threat looming: They are at risk of losing their newly won majority in the State Senate as early as next month.

New, special elections are expected in as many as nine Senate districts (six of which are now held by Republicans) as part of the largest recall effort against state lawmakers in Wisconsin’s history — an effort that grew out of yet another controversial measure Republicans pushed through this spring, a sharp reduction to collective bargaining rights for public workers.

“There has been not even a pretense of trying to find a bipartisan agreement on important issues,” said Senator Mark Miller, the Democratic leader, who added that some measures were introduced and passed through committees in just a week’s time — a warp-speed timetable for any state government. “It’s the Republican agenda, and that’s it. The only negotiations now are among themselves.”

And so Wisconsin — which garnered national attention earlier this year because of its Republican leaders’ aggressive efforts to cut collective bargaining — is again being watched closely as a testing ground, this time for potential backlash from the Republican sweep to power in statehouses last fall, when they won control over more legislative seats than they have had since 1928. Republicans also gained complete control of more than half a dozen other state Capitols.

Other states that recently came under Republican control — including Maine, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania — have not created nearly the stir as Wisconsin. Protesters here have started a new wave of demonstrations this month in the form of a “Walkerville” tent city near the Capitol in Madison, meant to mimic Hoovervilles, the Great Depression shantytowns of homeless people named after President Herbert Hoover.

Republicans in the Legislature here deny that any rush is on to ram through legislation, and say many of their pro-jobs, fiscally conservative measures are simply elements of the state’s next budget, which must be approved by next month.

Yet Republican leaders are clearly worried about what the recall elections may bring. Stephan Thompson, executive director of the Wisconsin Republican Party, acknowledged on Monday that Republicans were encouraging “protest candidates” (who he describes as conservative activists) to run as Democrats in the recall contests. The intent is to force Democratic Party challengers to the threatened Republican senators to compete in invented primary elections, and to buy the Republicans more time to make their cases to voters before a general contest.

Whatever the Republicans’ motivation, there is no doubt they are moving quickly.

In only his first weeks in office, Mr. Walker pushed to remake the state’s Department of Commerce into a public-private hybrid, to limit lawsuits against businesses, to give two-year corporate tax breaks to companies that move to Wisconsin and to give tax credits to companies for each job they create.

By February, he announced a “budget repair bill,” which, he said, would help solve a budget shortfall, in part by limiting collective bargaining rights for most public employees in Wisconsin.

The proposal set off a wave of protest, drawing union supporters to the Capitol by the thousands and spurring the Senate’s 14 Democrats to flee to Illinois to try to prevent a vote.

In the end, the bill passed without the Democrats, who then came home, but soon recall efforts were under way against six Republicans who had supported the bill and three Democrats who had left town. It was a noteworthy feat, requiring more than 140,000 signatures on petitions.

Since Wisconsin began allowing recalls of state-level politicians in 1926, only four such recall elections — which allow a new challenger to oppose an incumbent — have been held. In half, the incumbent won.

On Wednesday, state officials are expected to decide whether all nine elections will indeed take place. (The three Democrats are objecting to the way signatures were obtained on many petitions against them.) Recall elections have already been set for July 12 for the six Republicans.

There is no consensus on the likely outcome of these races in a state known for being split nearly evenly along party lines and also being home to a large group of independent voters.

One reminder of the divide came in April, when a nonpartisan State Supreme Court race became a virtual referendum on the standoff between Republicans and Democrats. David Prosser, an incumbent justice who some view as part of the court’s conservative bloc, won — but by only 7,004 votes of almost 1.5 million cast.

Democratic Party leaders say they could easily win the three Senate seats they would need to gain control of the chamber, now a 19-to-14 partisan split. But Republicans say they expect no such outcome, and believe they may even gain a seat.

Much is at stake. A judge last month blocked Wisconsin’s cuts to collective bargaining from taking effect because she said the Republicans had violated open-meeting laws in their rush to approve them. The State Supreme Court heard arguments on the issue on Monday, but it was uncertain how or how swiftly the court might act.

Control of the Senate also affects the 10-year redrawing of legislative boundaries — a task over which Republicans, under the current alignment, hold significant authority.

Among political experts, a debate has emerged here over whether Republicans should slow their feverish pace and get through the recall elections or push as fast as possible with their agenda while they can.

For now, there is no sign of a slowing — and there is even talk that if the State Supreme Court does not move rapidly on the collective bargaining question, a new vote might be needed on the issue.

“You want to make sure there aren’t things undone,” said Senator Scott L. Fitzgerald, the Republican leader, who called the recall elections a battle of the two bases — firm Republican voters against firm Democrats. “If some major issue hasn’t been taken care of, voters wouldn’t be as motivated.”

What Rotten Eggs Reveal About the State of Our Democracy

The massive recall of salmonella-infected eggs opens a window on the power of large corporations over not only our health, but over our government.
By Amy Goodman, King Features Syndicate
Posted on August 27, 2010

What do a half-billion eggs have to do with democracy? The massive recall of salmonella-infected eggs, the largest egg recall in U.S. history, opens a window on the power of large corporations over not only our health, but over our government.

While scores of brands have been recalled, they all can be traced back to just two egg farms. Our food supply is increasingly in the hands of larger and larger companies, which wield enormous power in our political process. As with the food industry, so, too, is it with oil and with banks: Giant corporations, some with budgets larger than most nations, are controlling our health, our environment, our economy and increasingly, our elections.

The salmonella outbreak is just the most recent episode of many that point to a food industry run amok. Patty Lovera is the assistant director of the food-safety group Food & Water Watch. She told me: “Historically, there’s always been industry resistance to any food-safety regulation, whether it’s in Congress or through the agencies. There are large trade associations for every sector of our food supply, starting from the large agribusiness-type producers all the way through to the grocery stores.”

The salmonella-tainted eggs came from just two factory farms, Hillandale Farms and Wright County Egg, both in Iowa. Behind this outbreak is the egg empire of Austin “Jack” DeCoster. DeCoster owns Wright County Egg and also owns Quality Egg, which provides chicks and feed to both of the Iowa farms. Lovera describes DeCoster as “a poster child for what happens when we see this type of consolidation and this scale of production.”

The Associated Press offered a summary of DeCoster’s multistate egg and hog operation’s health, safety and employment violations. In 1997, DeCoster Egg Farms agreed to pay a $2 million fine after then-Labor Secretary Robert Reich described his farm “as dangerous and oppressive as any sweatshop.” In 2002, DeCoster’s company paid $1.5 million to settle a lawsuit filed by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of Mexican women who reported they were subjected to sexual harassment, including rape, abuse and retaliation by supervisors. Earlier this summer, another company linked to DeCoster paid out $125,000 to the state of Maine over animal-cruelty allegations.

Despite all this, DeCoster has thrived in the egg and hog business, which puts him in league with other large corporations, like BP and the major banks. The BP oil spill, the largest in the history of this country, was preceded by a criminally long list of serious violations going back years, most notably the massive Texas City refinery explosion in 2005 that killed 15 people. If BP were a person, he would have been imprisoned long ago.

The banking industry is another chronic offender. In the wake of the largest global financial disaster since the Great Depression, banks like Goldman Sachs, flush with cash after a massive public bailout, subverted the legislative process aimed at reining them in.

The result: a largely toothless new consumer-protection agency, and relentless opposition to the appointment of consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren to head it. She would give the banks as much oversight as the new agency would allow, which is why the bankers, including President Barack Obama’s appointees like Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and economic adviser Larry Summers, are believed to be opposing her.

The fox, you could say, is watching the henhouse (and the rotten eggs within). Multinational corporations are allowed to operate with virtually no oversight or regulation. Corporate cash is allowed to influence elections, and thus, the behavior of our elected representatives. After the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which will allow unlimited corporate donations to campaigns, the problem is only going to get worse. To get elected, and to stay in power, politicians will have to cater more and more to their corporate donors.

There is hope. There is a growing movement to amend the U.S. Constitution, to strip corporations of the legal status of “personhood,” the concept that corporations have the same rights as regular people.

This would subject corporations to the same oversight that existed for the first 100 years of U.S. history. To restrict political participation just to people will take a genuine, grass-roots movement, though, since Congress and the Obama administration can’t seem to get even the most basic changes implemented. As the saying goes, if you want to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs.

US egg recall above half-a-billion and growing

By Agence France-Presse | Monday, August 23rd, 2010

A massive recall of eggs possibly tainted with salmonella bacteria is now at more than half-a-billion and could grow, the top US food safety official said Monday.

"It is the largest egg recall that we've had in recent history," Margaret Hamburg, head of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), told NBC television.

"We may see some additional recalls over the next couple days, even weeks, as we better understand the network of distribution of these eggs contaminated," she said.

Hamburg added that US officials were "continuing to investigate aggressively to determine the exact source of the contamination as we move forward with the recall."

There are no known salmonella deaths due to the eggs, but health officials said the outbreak has sickened hundreds of people across the United States.

The recalls affect two chicken egg processors -- Hillandale Farms and Wright County Eggs, both in the midwestern state of Iowa -- and cover at least 14 US states, from California to Arkansas.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has warned that the outbreak could actually be larger than reported, because most people who get sick from salmonella do not seek medical treatment.

The FDA said infected rodents many have spread the salmonella to the eggs.

Responding to complaints that the recalls were ordered just last week even though people began getting sick in May, Hamburg said it takes time for any food safety probe to get up and running.

"You have to start an investigation. First you see the rise in the number of cases of salmonella above the normal background. Then you start to identify the cases and do the investigation of where they might have been exposed," she said.

"This salmonella is the most common kind so it makes it a little bit harder to track down the source," Hamburg added.

"We've tried to move swiftly to identify the source and take the action necessary to protect the consumer."

Health experts say salmonella is spread most often by the consumption of food contaminated by animal fecal matter.

The microbe usually flourishes within the intestinal tracts of fowl and mammals.

An estimated 400,000 people are infected with food-borne salmonella each year in the United States, according to the CDC.

Recent years have seen various massive food recalls in the United States -- from salmonella-tainted peanut butter to pistachios to frozen spinach, and milk -- amid criticism that America's food regulation regime is under-staffed and overtaxed.

"We need additional resources. We need additional authority. We need greater ability to trace back products to their source so that we can identify how the contamination occurred and what products are at risk," Hamburg told NBC.

"We need better abilities and authorities to put in place these preventive controls and hold companies accountable, and we need to be able to more routinely review records and work with companies to make sure that the food supply is safe."

Massive Egg Recall

vidlink

Mazda recalls 300,000 cars (Mazda3 and Mazda5) in US, Canada and Mexico

Problems with power steering on Mazda3 and Mazda5 models could cause crashes
James Meikle
The Guardian, Wednesday 18 August 2010

Mazda is recalling more than 300,000 cars in the US, Canada and Mexico, warning that problems with their power steering could lead to crashes.

The company said repairs were needed to Mazda3 and Mazda5 models built from April 2007 to November 2008, faults that were put right a year ago in Japan. About 215,000 of the cars involved were sold in the US.

Mazda said the vehicles could have a sudden loss of power-steering, making it difficult for the driver to steer and increasing the risk of a crash.

The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration opened an investigation into steering problems in 2007-2009 Mazda3s in June, citing 33 complaints alleging steering problems, including three crashes.

Mazda told the agency last week it was first informed of similar steering problems in Japan in March 2008 and the company began its own investigation in July 2008.

By summer 2009, it had found that the problem was caused by rust forming inside a high-pressure pipe in the power steering system. Rust particles could then enter the power steering pump and cause it to shut down to avoid overheating.

An "improvement campaign" last summer to repair vehicles was organised in Japan "due to a high occurrence rate of this problem," according to the company's letter to the US agency. It did not issue a recall in North America, instead issuing a technical service bulletin to dealers since the "occurrence rate was low". That included repair procedures for customers who reported steering problems.

Mazda told NHTSA in the letter that in the spring of 2010, "we realised the occurrence rate was increasing in the North American market and then we began to study further field action for the market."

The Mazda action follows trouble with Toyotas in the US, although preliminary findings by the US government suggest the sticking accelerators that prompted a recall might have often been caused by driver error.

'Toyota defense' might free jailed Minnesota man

This is messed up.

'Toyota defense' might rescue jailed Minnesota manBy STEVE KARNOWSKI, Associated Press WriterThu Feb 25, 6:43 am ET

LINO LAKES, Minn. – Ever since his 1996 Toyota Camry shot up an interstate ramp, plowing into the back of an Oldsmobile in a horrific crash that killed three people, Koua Fong Lee insisted he had done everything he could to stop the car.

A jury didn't believe him, and a judge sentenced him to eight years in prison. But now, new revelations of safety problems with Toyotas have Lee pressing to get his case reopened and his freedom restored. Relatives of the victims — who condemned Lee at his sentencing three years ago — now believe he is innocent and are planning to sue Toyota. The prosecutor who sent Lee to prison said he thinks the case merits another look.

"I know 100 percent in my heart that I took my foot off the gas and that I was stepping on the brakes as hard as possible," Lee said in an interview Wednesday at the state prison in Lino Lakes. "When the brakes were looked at and we were told that nothing was wrong with the brakes, I was shocked."

Lee's accident is among a growing number of cases, some long resolved, that are getting new attention since Toyota admitted its problems with sudden acceleration were more extensive than originally believed. Numerous lawsuits involving Toyota accidents have been filed over the recent revelations, and attorneys expect the numbers will climb.

In testimony before Congress, company executive renewed their apologies for underestimating the safety problems but also acknowledged that they still may not have identified all the causes for the sudden acceleration.

The uncertainty could wind up helping Lee and others. Attorneys for both the 32-year-old St. Paul man as well as the victims' families say they're encouraged by the evidence that the problems went beyond models that originally were recalled.

If Lee's car was defective, "We don't want an innocent man sitting in prison," said Phil Carruthers, who prosecuted the case for Ramsey County.

A Toyota spokesman declined to comment on Lee's case.

Lee, a recent Hmong immigrant with only about a year of driving experience, was driving his pregnant wife, 4-year-old daughter, father and brother home from church the afternoon of June 10, 2006, when their Camry zoomed up an Interstate 94 exit ramp in St. Paul. Police said it was traveling between 70 and 90 mph when it rear-ended an Oldsmobile stopped at a red light.

Javis Trice Adams, 33, and his 10-year-old son, Javis Adams Jr., died at the scene. Adams' 6-year-old niece, Devyn Bolton, was paralyzed from the neck down, and died shortly after Lee was convicted.

At his 2007 trial, Lee testified he was certain he tried to brake. But a city mechanic testified the brakes worked fine, and Carruthers, the prosecutor, argued Lee must have hit the gas by mistake. Lee's attorney at trial, Tracy Eichorn-Hicks, seemed to concede as much, arguing Lee's actions fell short of gross negligence.

In the end, a jury convicted Lee on two counts of criminal vehicular homicide. At sentencing, Ramsey County District Judge Joanne Smith gave Lee the maximum after emotional testimony that included Devyn Bolton's mother, Bridget Trice, saying to Lee: "I hope you understand what you've done to my family, Mr. Lee. You have ruined it."

Lee's Camry wasn't among those subject to Toyota's recent safety recalls, but Toyota did recall some 1996 Camrys for defective cruise controls that could cause sudden acceleration.

Lee's current attorney, Brent Schafer, said several '96 Camry owners whose cars were not in the recall have filed sudden-acceleration complaints with federal regulators.

Bob Hilliard, a Texas attorney, is preparing a lawsuit by the victims in the Lee crash. Hilliard said other federal complaints suggest a defect more widespread than recalled cruise controls — something with engine control modules that could extend to other Toyota makes and model years.

Hilliard said he's aware of about 16 potential class-action cases filed around the country on the basis of the automaker's recent revelations. Attorneys for the victims' family declined to make them available, but Hilliard said they feel differently about Lee now. "They seem to have made peace with the fact that he's telling the truth," Hilliard said.

Lee said he's grateful.

"I feel like them believing in me is a gift that I've received from God," he said.

Schafer said he'll file paperwork soon asking to reexamine the wrecked Camry, which still sits at the St. Paul police impoundment lot. All sides expect that request to be granted. Then Schafer would have to persuade the judge that new evidence merits a new trial.

Judges usually are skeptical about claims of new evidence, but Joseph Daly, a law professor at Hamline University in St. Paul, said Lee's chances appear to be good. "I really think a judge would be inclined to let that evidence be presented," Daly said.

Still, Carruthers said several factors would work against Lee. Lee testified his brakes didn't work, not that his car suddenly accelerated. And two experts — a city mechanic and an engineer hired by Lee's insurance company — didn't identify sudden acceleration as a problem with the car. Schafer said sudden acceleration is the only reasonable explanation for what happened.

Lee said he never had driven before immigrating to the United States and settling in St. Paul's large Hmong community in 2004. He was working to get his high school equivalency degree before the crash, and he's still working on it in prison. He wept as he described the impact of his imprisonment on his wife and four children, ages 8, 5, 3 and 2, who are on welfare.

"Right now it is very difficult for them," Lee said tearfully. "It's because my children are still very young. My wife is going to school and there aren't people to help her out. My kids ask about me constantly. They ask me when I'm going to come home. They ask about me. I don't know what to say to them."