On New Year’s Eve, President Obama signed the H.R. 1540 into law, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012”. Many are unhappy about this bill because it includes language that suggests that terrorist suspects, including Americans, can be held indefinitely without trial. One of those unhappy about this provision is President Obama himself. Toward that end, he signed a “signing statement” spelling out his administration’s interpretation of the bill and how they intend to enforce it.
Here’s the relevant section on indefinitely detention:
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.
This wasn’t enough for Professional Left spokesperson Glenn Greenwald. Some idiot named DrDawg tweeted to Angry Black Lady (Imani Gandy) “Obama could rape a nun live on NBC and you’d say we weren’t seeing what we were seeing.” Greenwald jumped on board one minute later with this offensive response:
No – she’d say it was justified & noble- that he only did it to teach us about the evils of rape.
Not content to use rape as some sort of sick joke to prove his loathing of our president, Greenwald doubled down later when he was called on his use of rape as a metaphor by tweeting, “It is NOT a “rape metaphor”: it’s a statement they they’d defend ANY evil: assassinations, child-killings: EVEN rape”.
I know many of you out there probably like Glenn Greenwald but keep this in mind that is how he sees Obama’s supporters. Just like Jane Hamsher called supporters of President Obama “the dumbest motherfuckers in the world”, Greenwald believes that if they saw the president raping a nun on live television, they would say it was “justified & noble”. He said that and then stuck to his guns when challenged on it.
This is the man who is often trotted out as a representative of the progressive left. To the extent that he is portrayed this way, I can only say he certainly does not represent MY progressive liberal views. I find him to be as odious and repugnant as Glenn Beck and “his ilk” in this regard.
I commend your attention to a spectacular take-down of the offensive Greenwald by Zerlina Maxwell at the Grio HERE. Also, this fantastic response to single-issue types like Greenwald by Muskegon Critic is a must-read: Yeah, Cuz I’m The A$^hole.