Virginia Says No to Lawless Imprisonment

Global Research
David Swanson

Good things do come out of the Virginia state legislature.  That normally reprehensible body has just stood up to the federal outrage that has come to be known as the NDAA.  The letters stand for the National Defense Authorization Act, but at issue here is not the bulk of that bill.  Virginia's state government has no objection to dumping our grandchildren's unearned pay into the pockets of war profiteers while our schools lack funding.  At issue is the presidential power to lock people up without a trial, which was slipped into the latest military funding bill late last year and signed into law by President Barack Obama on New Year's Eve.  In fact, Virginia's legislature does not object to that abuse except in one particular circumstance, namely when the victim of it is a U.S. citizen.  But in that circumstance, Virginia says Hell No.

Locally in Charlottesville, we rallied at Republican Congressman Robert Hurt's office.
http://charlottesvillepeace.org/node/2629

We urged him to vote No, and he did so, saying:

    "After studying the controversial provisions and after hearing from many in the Fifth District, I concluded that the detainee provisions in the bill did not provide clear and unambiguous protection of the constitutional rights of American citizens. For this reason, I opposed the bill on final passage."

    http://charlottesvillepeace.org/node/2635

Groups from across the political spectrum, including the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, urged passage of a bill in Virginia's state legislature to nullify the new provisions.

http://charlottesvillepeace.org/node/2692

Both houses have now passed the bill by veto-proof margins.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?121+sum+HB1160

Here's what the bill (House bill 1160) says:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1.  § 1. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of law, no agency of the Commonwealth as defined in § 8.01-385 of the Code of Virginia, political subdivision of the Commonwealth as defined in § 8.01-385 of the Code of Virginia, employee of either acting in his official capacity, or member of the Virginia National Guard or Virginia Defense Force, when such a member is serving in the Virginia National Guard or the Virginia Defense Force on official state duty, shall aid an agency of the armed forces of the United States in the conduct of the investigation, prosecution, or detention of any citizen pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 1541 as provided by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (P.L. 112-18, § 1021) if such aid would place any state agency, political subdivision, employee of such state agency or political subdivision, or aforementioned member of the Virginia National Guard or the Virginia Defense Force in violation of the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Virginia, and provision of the Code of Virginia, any act of the General Assembly, or any regulation of the Virginia Administrative Code.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?121+ful+HB1160H1

The bill’s primary sponsor, Delegate Bob Marshall, said:

"During World War II, the federal government incarcerated tens of thousands of loyal Japanese Americans in the name of national security. By this bill, Virginia declares that it will not participate in similar modern-day efforts.  Even President Obama had questions about the bill, when he promised the American people that he would not use the unrestrained powers it granted him — but why should we trust any President with such powers?  There are moments in our history when our liberties hang in the balance. This is one of those moments. I urge the Senate... to lead the way in the nation to ensure that Virginia will not cooperate when the Federal Government strays off the reservation with laws that take away the civil liberties of our citizens."

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/02/28/ndaa-nullification-passes-virginia-senate-by-a-veto-proof-39-1-vote/

Presumably the phrase "strays off the reservation" was used with intended irony.  In any event, Delegate Marshall got this one right.  Obama had insisted on being given these powers and then bizarrely promised not to use them, or at least not to use them in certain ways.  According to Obama's promise in his signing statement, he will choose not to imprison us through the military.  Our lawless imprisonments, if non-military, will comply with his promise and his law, but not with the U.S. Constitution.  And Virginia will not assist.  I can't recall the last time a state or federal government claiming to represent me did something that made me feel more, rather than less, safe.  Predictably, this surprise came from Virginia's normally medieval legislature before anything of the sort has emerged from war-warped Washington.

Here's some background on where this issue came from, last December:
http://davidswanson.org/node/3508

These were among the complaints registered the last time this nation had a king:

"He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

Obama Runs Into Signing Statements Firestorm

Truthdig

As a presidential candidate in 2008, President Obama aggressively criticized his predecessor George W. Bush for attaching signing statements to legislation coming across his desk.

“I taught the Constitution for 10 years,” Obama said then. “I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress.”

Three years later, Obama is racking up a reputation for using the same technique, which is neither specifically prohibited nor sanctioned by the Constitution or federal law. On Friday he announced the addition of a statement that would override parts of the 2011 federal appropriations bill, specifically a provision defunding four White House czars.

Obama said these presidential appointees, overseeing health care, climate change, cars and urban affairs, are not going anywhere.

As Talking Points Memo reported, “The President in the early evening on Friday—a time notorious for news dumps—raised reporters’ and his critics hackles by adding a signing statement to the resolution that funds the federal government through September and avoids a government shutdown. The signing statement suggests Obama would ignore some parts of the deal, including language defunding the czars overseeing health care, climate change, the auto industry and urban affairs. Republicans have long lambasted Obama’s use of czars, senior presidential advisers on major issues who do not require Senate confirmation.”

White House press secretary Jay Carney rushed to clarify candidate Obama’s past stance about signing statements, arguing that Bush had used them improperly but that Obama is not.

“He never said he was opposed to signing statements,” Carney said. “He’s always said the President must retain the right to use signing statements. ... His concern was with what he saw was abuse of the signing statement by the previous administration.”

Conservatives are jumping on Obama for what they see as a flip-flop on the practice, which the president also employed in signing the 2009 budget bill. —KDG