DAVID SHUSTER: The assault on civil liberties in this country that began after 9/11 under the Bush Administration continues under the current Obama administration.
In our number-one story on the "Countdown" — Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Chris Hedges is now suing the commander-in-chief and his secretary of defense Leon Panetta in federal court here in New York.
The suit, filed last Friday, challenges the legality of the National Defense Authorization Act, signed by the President in late December and set to take effect this March. The bill allows for the indefinite detention of American citizens without trial. Hedges says the bill's definition of a terrorist is exceedingly amorphous and may lead to the detention of American journalists who report on contentious events. This, he says, erases fundamental constitutional liberties.
(Excerpt from video clip) CHRIS HEDGES: It is a huge and egregious assault against our democracy. It overturns over 200 years of law, which has kept the military out of domestic policing.
SHUSTER: In a Washington Post op-ed last Sunday titled "Ten Reasons the U.S. is No Longer the Land of the Free," law professor Jonathan Turley points to the recent passage of the National Defense Authorization Act, as well as other civil liberties infringements orchestrated since 9/11 as ample grounds for reconsidering our definition of a free country.
Among the reasons are:
- The assassination of U.S. citizens, which President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him" to order the killing of enemies of the state.
- Indefinite detention was expanded under the law signed last month, giving the government the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion.
- Arbitrary justice gives the commander-in-chief the power to decide whether a person will receive a trial in federal or military court.
- Warrantless searches can now be used to search everything from business documents to personal library records, without probable cause, if ordered by the president.
Now, for more on this, let's bring in constitutional-law expert, George Washington University professor and "Countdown" contributor Jonathan Turley. Jonathan, thanks for your time tonight.
JONATHAN TURLEY: Hi, David.
SHUSTER: We mentioned four reason you mentioned. What are the other extraordinary powers that the government has acquired since 9/11 that infringe on civil liberties?
TURLEY: Well, you know, there is a great array. They include things like being able to transfer people to foreign countries that are part of the rendition program, even though the Obama administration no longer uses the term "renditions." It still claims the right to transfer people to other countries.
We just had a story, that was picked up by very few U.S. newspapers, that the English confirmed that one of the detainees that they have was, in fact, tortured by a foreign country, in the presence — they claim — of a CIA personnel, and this interrogation was done at our behest. The interrogation involved clear, unmistakable and rather grotesque torture.
But what you have is this myriad of powers, starting by the claim by President Obama that he can kill any American citizen at any time, anywhere in the world, on his soul authority. Two of his top attorneys recently reaffirmed that. That courts have no role in that and that they can strip citizens of their rights, based on their view that they are terrorists. Or aiders and abettors of terrorists.
All these other powers become lessers contained in that greater. And so the question then is, what are we? We — we talk a very good game about being the leader of the free world, but when you stack up all of these different powers that have accumulated since 9/11, we have a serious definitional problem.
SHUSTER: You mentioned the Obama administration's argument, their defense for this. How do you see the legal reasoning behind the Obama administration and what is your sense of how the courts will view it?
TURLEY: That's one of the problems that I list, in that the courts have repeatedly said that people do not have standing to challenge many of these national security powers. And the Obama administration, like the Bush administration, has been very aggressive in arguing that no one has the right to challenge these things.
So, for example, they have an assassination list — and that list was known to have a U.S. citizen on it, this al-Awlaki guy that was ultimately killed. His family went to federal court to challenge his being placed on a kill list.
The federal courts simply said, "You don't have standing. He'll have to come and file." Well, since he is on a list to be killed, that makes going to the clerk's office rather difficult. More importantly, if he were to retain an attorney, that attorney could be viewed as aiding and abetting, could certainly be accused of that. And no attorney could have anything to do with him. He was ultimately killed, and so was a second U.S. citizen who was with him.
And so, the argument is quite sweeping. If the president can have any one of us killed, based on his own discretion, the rest of these rights become simply lessers included in that greater, and it's a very dangerous thing.
And the fact that the federal court system is no longer a check on that power is truly frightening.
I think the framers would have been astonished to see the reaction of the American people to things like indefinite detention. They knew what indefinite detention was, they wanted to prevent it. They lived under this type of regime, of an absolute ruler saying, "You can trust me, because I'll use this power wisely." And he didn't, and so they created a system to prevent us having any type of absolute reliance on people, as Madison said, "being an angel."
SHUSTER: Do you see anything breaking the cycle any time soon?
TURLEY: The only thing that will break the cycle is for the American people to become educated about the implications of this, and to stand up and say, "Enough."
You know, that indefinitely detention law was passed by Republicans and Democrats, and there is a huge amount of misinformation and dishonest discourse going out there. A lot of Democrats are claiming that it doesn't allow for indefinite detention, which is absolutely wrong. So, there is an education aspect here.
But American citizens had this incredible, symbolic moment. You know, the indefinite-detention law was signed on New Year's Eve, and —
SHUSTER: We've got to leave — Jonathan, we have got to leave it there. Great op-ed in The Washington Post. Jonathan Turley, "Countdown" contributor, law professor at George Washington, thanks, as always.
TURLEY: Thank you, Dave.
Watch 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' live each weeknight at 8/7c on Current TV.
Find Current on your TV.
