[Here's a guest post from Jason Sparks aka @sparksjls. I meant to post this before the Iowa Caucus but -- SQUIRREL!! Oops. The points are still salient, and so you should still read it. Cheers! -ABLxx]
Cenk Uygur, late of MSNBC, now of Current, is featured in a new Huffington Post opinion piece urging Democrats to vote against President Obama in the Iowa caucuses. To support his underlying aim, Uygur cherry-picks a handful of issues on which he disagrees with the president’s actions, and in the process either purposefully misleads or, alternatively, has conducted so little research as to unintentionally mislead. Either way: He misleads. Let’s look at what he’s arguing.
Uygur opens his HuffPo piece with a screed about the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA); he takes issue with the final language contained in the NDAA sections pertaining to the detention of al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. Uygur asserts that the NDAA allows for “the indefinite detention of US citizens by the military inside the US.” To bolster this frightening claim, Uygur links to this Glenn Greenwald post on Salon.com, in which Greenwald makes the same assertion: that the NDAA is the “indefinite detention bill.”
So, is it? How can we determine if the NDAA is the “indefinite detention bill” Uygur and Greenwald (to name just two) claim it is? How about if we look at the legislative language? The pertinent detention section of the NDAA is Sec. 1021/1022. Here’s the final language that came out of the House/Senate conference committee (the NDAA went to conference because the House-passed and Senate-passed NDAAs differed in key aspects, as we’ll discuss below.) I’m clipping at some length the key provisions at Sec. 1022, and have taken the liberty of bolding certain sub-sections:
SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.
(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-
(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1021 who is determined–
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
[…]
(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
[…]
To summarize: Sec. 1022 of the NDAA authorizes military detention of members or associates of al-Qaeda. The final conference language snipped above explicitly excludes American citizens and lawful resident aliens from the requirement to militarily detain members or associates of al-Qaeda. So, why the uproar from Uygur, Greenwald, and other civil libertarians? Well, they might say, the language doesn’t require military detention of American al-Qaeda members or associates, but that means that military detention is still permitted. Sure, that’s a fair criticism, but is this an indefinite detention bill? Of course it isn’t. Any reasonable reader of the final detention language would be hard-pressed to see the codification of military detention for al-Qaeda members and affiliates as “one of the worst laws ever passed in the US,” which is how Uygur frames it in his opening paragraph. Does this law, which allows for the military detention of suspected terrorists, do more harm to average Americans than the Alien and Sedition Acts did? More harm than the Supreme Court caused in its Plessy v. Ferguson ruling, affirming the legality of racial segregation?
Let’s remember something critically important: the Executive Branch of our government has asserted its authority to indefinitely detain enemy combatants (remember Gitmo?) for over a decade. During the entire Bush Administration, the Executive claimed and used this authority in creating a vast system of CIA prisons around the world, where they detained and – in some instances – tortured suspected al-Qaeda members and associates. That detention authority, which the Bush Administration asserted, was implicit in the 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF). The 2012 NDAA merely codifies that implicit authority, making it explicit, and therefore subject naturally to judicial challenge. By removing the authority from the amorphous land of implied authority, and placing it firmly in the realm of explicit Federal law, any future alleged violations by the US Government of this authority can be challenged in the Federal courts.
Oh, and about those secret CIA-run prisons established in the Bush Administration? Obama closed them all – on his first day in office.
Uygur’s claims that Obama has been a civil libertarian’s worst nightmare just does not pass the reasonableness test. Let’s look at just a handful of big wins for civil libertarians under the Obama Administration:
- Closed the Bush-established CIA-run foreign detention facilities.
- Refused to defend the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act
- Led the fight to repeal the Clinton-era discriminatory Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell military service policy
- Signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law
Has Obama been perfect on civil liberties issues? Of course he hasn’t. But in the real world of politics – which is the one we occupy – Obama has been better than any president since Johnson on civil liberties issues as a whole. This is incontrovertible fact.
Uygur complains about Dodd-Frank, which he says “doesn’t reform a damn thing.” Really, Cenk? Not a damn thing? If that’s the case, why are Republicans in the Senate refusing to confirm any Consumer Financial Protection Board Director nominated by the president, absent the Administration meeting GOP demands to water down the CFPB? And that CFPB, which will substantially increase consumer financial protections across an enormous array of financial products, is a product of the Dodd-Frank reforms that Uygur claims “don’t reform a damn thing.”
Uygur deploys the frequent complaint among some progressives, namely, that “Obama always caves!!!!” This complaint belies a stunning lack of understanding about how our Federal system operates. It assumes – or demands – that the president stamp his feet, yell and scream, and simply gets his way on everything. Certainly we all know that’s just not how our system works. Let’s briefly consider the flurry of legislation that passed during the December 2010 lame-duck session.
In return for a two-year, short-term extension of all Bush tax cuts (from the child tax credit for low-income earners to the marginal rate cuts for all earned income), Obama secured:
- A one-year, 2% tax cut for all wage earners (the payroll tax cut)
- A one-year, non-offset extension of maximum unemployment benefits up to 99 weeks
- Passage of the NEW START nuclear reduction treaty between Russia and the US, substantially reducing the dangerous nuclear weapon stockpiles held by each country
No president ever negotiates in ways that I – or anyone else – can approve of all the time. However, Obama has achieved huge victories in every aspect of his Administration – in foreign and domestic policy – and it’s impossible for me to believe that anyone who shares progressive beliefs can truly posit that he’s been a disaster – the way Uygur does.
Either Uygur hasn’t thought through the consequences of denying Obama a win in the Iowa caucuses, or perhaps, he believes that some brand benefit will accrue to him by opposing Obama in Iowa. If I’m being generous, and assuming Uygur thinks that progressive pressure now will lead Obama to govern “more progressively,” how would losing the Iowa caucuses work to achieve that goal? A loss by the president in Iowa would further embolden Republicans in Congress by creating the (mistaken) impression that Obama has lost the Democratic mandate to govern. A steady drumbeat would emanate from the national political press in support of this impression, only strengthening it further. The reality is that the president is working with a Republican-controlled House and a Senate that can’t move even the most moderate legislation through its chamber. No amount of pressure on the president will change this dynamic until after the November elections.
The president doesn’t need the Uygurs of the left hectoring him with unsubstantiated hysteria; he needs progressives to take the time to educate themselves when confronted with such hysteria. An educated left will quickly realize that the president is not the failure Uygur caricatures. An educated left will support the president and counter hysteria and hyperbole with facts.
[You can find Jason Sparks on the Twitters at @sparkjls.]
I know so many terrific actual journalists who have lost jobs in recent years — so seeing a guy like Cenk walk around tripping over rakes in his clown shoes is just irritating. Fortunately, I don’t get Current and don’t read AOLrianna (I have this funny notion that the people who write for your corporate site should actually get paid), so am spared having to see his ignorant posturings most of the time. But yeah, good to see his “Occupy the caucuses” thing went nowhere in a hurry. It must piss them off that the actual voters in the Dem party seem to be able to decide how they feel about President Obama’s record and balance it against the opposition without any help from the paid gum-flappers and poutrage peddlers.
And since Cenk is yet another johnny-come-lately to “progressive” causes (along with Schultz, AOLrianna, Markos Moulitsas, etc., etc., etc.), I reserve the right to consider him a ratfucker. Sorry, but I have 30 years on the ground with this stuff, and I’m not going to be lectured to by people who thought Reagan — much less Bush — was a good role model. They weren’t around when we needed them then — so to hell with what they think now.
No, I will not vote against PBO. I will gladly vote for him, not that it is anyone’s business who I vote for.
As for Uygur, he is an entertainer, and I do not take his advice.
Cenk is a profiteer off his lies..nothing entertaining about that.
And let’s pause and savor the results from Iowa, shall we?
Obama % of reported State Delegates 98.46%
Other % of reported State Delegates 1.54%
This entire episode has shown exactly how influential Uyger isn’t. Between the constant, spiteful whining and his continued insistence that the Obama Administration is organizing people to “bring him down”, he’s turning into the professional left version of Glenn Beck.
Knocking on wood as I say this, but I will enjoy the fits thrown by both the right wing noise machine and assholes like Cenk when the President wins reelection this fall.
Cenk is now stuck on a barely watched uber-premium cable channel. President Obama doesn’t have to hire people to “bring him down”… He and Keith Olbermann are doing a great job at that all on their own! It’s just too bad Al Gore’s reputation also had to be sullied in the process.
If the fact comes to light Barack Obama could give two shits about this dude, oh, that would kill the ego
Damn, there is a sucker born every minute and they become supporters of these hucksters and con men.
So, seeing how they’ve failed in their latest gambit to stir poutrage and embarrass the President, what now Cenk? Ariana? Glen? Jane? Anyone?
When Barack Obama wins, and without your help, despite you, your world and bomb throwing will be revealed to amount to shit.
I suspect they’re gonna work as hard as the right to break President Obama, or face a humiliating defeat
OK – here is the problem. In the OLD version of the bill, the stinky version, this was Section 1021. In the version that passed, the items wee, 1031, 1032, 1033, and 1034. These all reinstated civil protections, US citizen immunity, and review.Detainees today have MORE review than CA gives people up for parole. We passed a bill mandating that if you don’t get paroled, you wait FIFTEEN YEARS for your next haring. Detainees get annual review. Courts have mandated habeus corpus, so don’t get your knickers in a twist.
If you’re gonna hitch your argument to a bill that did not pass, that is obsolete, NOT in the running, you might as well pin your Constitutional law on the Article of Confederation. (Well, OK – Ron Paul does that, but that ought to make it clear how stupid this is.)
The bill is S.1867. You can go to Thomas.loc.gov and put in that bill number then LOOK AT THE TEXT for the second, FINAL version that passed the Senate. The Sections are in numerical sequence, easy to find, not a problem at all.
But if you oppose the President for “signing” a bill with Section 1021 – in this version, final, lawfully passed – then you have to see that Section 1021 is about “Limitation on Availability of Funds for Placing Maritime Prepositioning Ship Squadrons on Reduced Operating Status.” You gotta problem with that, Cenk? Me? I don’t even know what that MEANS, but I can easily figure out it’s not an issue of detention.
The bill CHANGED, people. It’s lawful and not evil. Hyping Section 1021 is just evidence of utter ignorance of reality. If you’re going to advocate not voting for this president, could you at LEAST do it based on FACTS and not lies? Or dead bills?
Thank you for this post clarifying the NDAA and the “indefinite detention of American citizens”. It is information like this that I need from the Internet. Definitely can’t get it on the nightly news.
A post clarifying exactly what the “progressives” want from President Obama would be appreciated. Including how it is they expect him to be successful doing it ALONE. This is not snark. I’m befuddled by the hostility. Thanks in advance.
Remember when the PL emo-progs were giddy over the bad economic numbers “doing Obama in”?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2012_01/private_sector_jobs_looking_mu034559.php
No wonder why they’re resorting to this kind of ridiculous trickery and bamboozling. Now that Obama may actually have a GOOD economic record to run on this year, they have to find other ways to attack him.
The economy is getting better and on track to do so, there is a watchdog in the CFPB to protect consumers and a consensus now in the NLRB to protect workers, what do they, the emo-progs and righties have to run on, and all they got left is ugly racism and lies, I just curious who will drop an n-bomb first
Thanks for this, I guess Iowa Dems told Uygur what they thought of this dumbass idea.
I stumbled on Current TV’s Iowa Caucus coverage the other night and I was sorry to see Al Gore chatting with Uygur. As other here have asked, why is Gore giving this hack credibility, and why would he give him such a prominent spot on his network? I don’t suggest or expect him to agree with everyone who works at his network, but is 2012 the best year to give someone a show so they can scream “Obama=Bush” every night?
Especially when Gore was the victim of that shyte himself in 2000 from idiots like Michael Moore. Al Gore needs to be tweeted and asked wtf he thinks he’s doing? Is it for money?
Do you think that he knows he’s stupid? He might want to be careful. The correspondent’s dinner is only a few months away. He doesn’t want to end up like the guy from last year. Columbia might want to tighten up their admission standards. Between Cenk and Ms. McCain they really give that school a bad rep.
Between Cenk and Ms. McCain they really give that school a bad rep.
To be fair, Vic, Obama went to Columbia, but like my alma mater, we let a few bad apples slip in.
Obama is as bad as Bush. You’re hypocrites for defending his passage of the NDAA.
Your sucker Ignorance is showing, Jim. You’re reguritating stupid lying points from the profiteering “left”.
Obama is as bad as Bush. You’re hypocrites for defending his passage of the NDAA.
So what if you think I am a hypocrite.
I do not care what you think. I have no reason to care.
“(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”
You sir, are a fucking dumb ass
Sadly, Current TV has become to Cable News TV what Pacifica Radio is to public radio for Progressives – unbearable Rush Limbaugh-style fire breathing from the so-called “Left” that attack friend and foe alike (more often, they take greater pleasure and stripping down their allies).
Cenk Uygur, along with alot of other Emo-Progs are either refugee moderate Republicans who haven’t the foggiest about how progressive politics gets done in America (Shultz, Uygur, Greenwald), are old school flamethrowers from way back in the day who are still waiting on their magic pony from Chairman Mao (almost everyone over at Common Dreams or Black Agenda Report), shameless hucksters who will say anything for rating or self promotion (Maher, Moore, Nader) or Clintonistas who fear being banished from political relevance after a second Obama term (Walsh, PUMA’s).
In other words – most of the people drumming the “Obama = Bush” war drum have a bone to pick with Obama and gain a lot if he loses. If Republicans got as much out of Bush as progressive got out of Obama, Rush Limbaugh would call for his face on Mount Rushmore. But for Emo-Progs like Ugyur and others, its more important to ‘teach Obama’ a lesson because, well, what else are they going to do? Engage in real politics? Encourage their viewers to get involve? Nah, no ratings in that…you’d lose “street cred”.
You know about Black Agenda Report? Those guys are crazy. It seems Dr. Hutchinson is the only one that lives on Earth. I believe their incompetence is showing. They’re too stupid to take advantage of what’s in front of them(the party boss is black). All they know is anger and protest.
Vic, Charlie Rangel said it best – “I don’t care about the Left, because the Lefties don’t vote”. I used to listen to Black Agenda Report years ago, then I realize that I have more productive means to make change than throwing temper tantrums.
Basically, folks over at BAR and other fellow travelers in hte Mau-Mau faux Left are more than comfortable to sit back and whine about Obama doesn’t measure to their Imaginary Friend President. What’s worse is that they also advocate for ideas and tactics that went out with love beads and 8-track cassettes. Its a site for crusty old wannabe black militants who still fawn over Mumia.
Sorry, this is realpolitik, not fantasy football. People like Kuicinich, Nader and McKinney will never be President and will get get higher than a backwater Congress seat. Until unless we start sending right wing kooks to ‘re-education camps’, we’re going to be way behind Europe in social services for a long time. Obama isn’t perfect, but he’s light years ahead of everyone in DC. EVERYONE. Get used to it, get over it, or get out of the way.
@sparksjls: Thanks for the great article. I spend a lot of my social networking time (mostly Facebook) in discussion with EmoProgs, some of whom are good friends with networks that reach thousands of people. My philosophy is to point out hyperbole, and try to keep misrepresentations in check by engaging in thoughtful (if sometimes relentless) discussion. My friends are pretty intelligent people, and so I do my best to appeal to their sense of reason.
I would love to share this article, but there is one thing I know they will tear apart. You state: “about those secret CIA-run prisons established in the Bush Administration? Obama closed them all – on his first day in office…” and link to a WaPost article from January 23, 2009. These secret prisons are a major sticking point for EmoProgs, and I don’t think the WaPost article will change any minds. It is primarily about Obama ordering the closure of Guantanamo, which of course has not yet happened. Are there any other sources you could reference to back up the statement that Obama has closed all secret prisons?
Your contention seems to be that NDAA is not the worst piece of legislation to ever be signed into law. You set the bar pretty low for Obama.
And the problem with NDAA was never about how Obama would interpret it, but how future presidents will.
If you pay attention, you’ll notice that there are actually very few people expressing an “Obama = Bush” viewpoint.
Many of us are disappointed in Obama’s performance thus far, and would like him to do more, rather than less. I do not think that those who are satisfied with half-measures, with the least Obama could do, represent the interests of the American people better than those who would like Obama to achieve more in a second term.