National Defense Authorization Act - A Betrayal of the Founders

Exclusive at ConsortiumNews: Though voicing “serious reservations” about encroachments on civil liberties in a military authorization bill, President Obama signed the law anyway to avoid a nasty veto fight with Congress. But ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern says courage, not timidity, is what’s needed at such moments. www.Consortiumnews.com

A Betrayal of the Founders

January 4, 2012

By Ray McGovern
President Barack Obama desecrated the Constitution that he and I swore to defend when he signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which includes language violating the Bill of Rights and other constitutionally protected liberties.

The NDAA affirms that the president has the authority to use the Armed Forces to detain any person “who was 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.”

Yes, I know that the Obama administration’s allies got some wording put in to say that “nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the [2001] Authorization for Use of Military Force,” nor shall the NDAA “be construed to affect 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.”Under the law, the president also may lock up anyone who commits a “belligerent act” against the U.S. or its coalition allies “without trial, until the end of the hostilities.” The law embraces the notion that the U.S. military can be used even domestically to arrest an American citizen or anyone else who falls under such suspicion – and it is “suspicion” because a trial can be avoided indefinitely.
And there were some waivers stuck in to give the president discretion over whether to send someone into the gulag of the Military Commissions system possibly for the rest of a detainee’s life, given the indefinite nature of what was formerly called the “war on terror” and what the Pentagon has dubbed the Long War.
It’s true as well that after signing the NDAA on New Year’s Eve, President Obama engaged in some handwringing. He expressed “serious reservations” about some of the law’s provisions and declared, “I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” He added that he would interpret the law “in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.”
But those who hoped that Barack Obama, the onetime constitutional law professor, would begin rolling back the aggressive assault on civil liberties that President George W. Bush began after the 9/11 attacks must be sorely disappointed.    There is more. Please go to Robert Parry's excellent Website -  Read more »

Law Enforcement Sky-Spy Drones Are Coming

See update and second addendum from NYT on 2/2012 below]


DATA DRIVEN VIEW POINT - Unmanned surveillance drones for domestic spying may soon to be common practice by US law enforcement.  Tracking protesters or mapping a persons associations with other people or entities will be a snap.  Also, keep in mind that drones can be fitted with equipment capable of observing our movements within our own homes.  The ACLU published an article about this recently that is worth reading.   An excerpt follows.  The time for public discussions and debate is now.  Once these drones are up they may never come back down.

From the ACLU on Dec 15, 2011:

New Eyes in the Sky: Protecting Privacy from Domestic Drone Surveillance

 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles – UAV’s or “drones” as they are called – are on the way.  http://bit.ly/uvkZwg  

Just this week the Los Angeles Timesreported that Customs and Border Patrol agency has been lending their Predator drones to law enforcement agencies for domestic operations. And their use is only going to spread.

The question is, will drones become pervasive spying tools that change the nature of American life? Will we be able to walk out of our front door without wondering at all times whether some eye in the sky might be watching every move we make?

Today we’re releasing a report on drones, “Protecting Privacy From Aerial Surveillance: Recommendations for Government Use of Drone Aircraft.” In the report, we discuss the current drone landscape (technology and use), talk about the privacy issues, and conclude with recommendations for protections we believe must be put in place to ensure they don’t destroy our privacy.

The fact is, all the pieces appear to be lining up for the eventual introduction of routine aerial surveillance in American life. Those pieces include:

• Pent-up demand by police departments for the technology, which has been restrained so far by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) over safety concerns.
• The FAA, which has been largely holding back drone deployment, is under political and industry pressure to open the floodgates and make it much easier for police departments to deploy these aircraft.
• The technology, which has been advancing by leaps and bounds, and – like most technology these days – will almost certainly continue to get cheaper and more powerful.
• Our privacy laws, which do not currently provide sufficient protection from this technology.

UPDATE

The Drone Next Door: New FAA Rules Will Increase UAVs In National Airspace
JILLIAN RAYFIELD FEBRUARY 9, 2012

A new set of laws will require the FAA to ease up on the rules governing domestic drone use — and to find a way to integrate them into national airspace alongside regular aircraft.

Earlier this week, the Senate passed a bill by a vote of 75-20 that had been fought over in Congress for several years, which appropriates $63.4 billion for the FAA, and, among other things, requires the FAA to loosen restrictions on domestic drone use by September, 2015.

Currently, the FAA has a strict process of licensing agencies to operate Unmanned Aerial Vehicles within the U.S., and limits where they can be flown for safety reasons. Primarily, the unarmed UAVs are being used by some law enforcement agencies for surveillance and emergency situations.

The FAA was already planning to issue new, looser standards for issuing the licenses in the next couple of months, but the bill sets a hard deadline for those rules to be finished within 90 days.

But the legislation also requires the FAA to expand the list of who can operate the drones, and where and when they can be flown. “A government public safety agency” will be able to operate drones of a certain size as long as certain safety conditions are met. And the FAA is now required “to safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system.”

The ACLU, which has recently sued the government for records on predator drone strikes targeting U.S. citizens overseas, is wary of the bill’s provisions that will allow the UAVs to have more access to national airspace.



ADDENDUM #2
New York Time

February 20, 2012

Drones in Afghanistan, Drones in … Akron?
Now that American civilians have wide latitude to use drone aircraft, the potential is dizzying: shooting Hollywood films, crop dusting, monitoring weather, spying on neighbors, photographing celebrities.

Should the government restrict where drones can fly and film, to protect people’s privacy? Or should we all assume that if we are outdoors or near a window, we have no privacy?READ THE DISCUSSION »