*원래 워싱턴포스트(2012년 1월15일)에 실렸던 장문의 칼럼을 재게재한 것이라고 함.
10 Reasons the U.S. Is No Longer the Land of the Free
Posted: 01/18/12 12:19 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-turley/constitutional-rights_b_1213234.html
Jonathan Turley
Every year, the State Department issues reports on individual rights in other countries, monitoring the passage of restrictive laws and regulations around the world. Iran, for example, has been criticized for denying fair public trials and limiting privacy, while Russia has been taken to task for undermining due process. Other countries have been condemned for the use of secret evidence and torture.
Even as we pass judgment on countries we consider unfree, Americans remain confident that any definition of a free nation must include their own -- the land of free. Yet, the laws and practices of the land should shake that confidence. In the decade since Sept. 11, 2001, this country has comprehensively reduced civil liberties in the name of an expanded security state. The most recent example of this was the National Defense Authorization Act, signed Dec. 31, which allows for the indefinite detention of citizens. At what point does the reduction of individual rights in our country change how we define ourselves?
While each new national security power Washington has embraced was controversial when enacted, they are often discussed in isolation. But they don't operate in isolation. They form a mosaic of powers under which our country could be considered, at least in part, authoritarian. Americans often proclaim our nation as a symbol of freedom to the world while dismissing nations such as Cuba and China as categorically unfree. Yet, objectively, we may be only half right. Those countries do lack basic individual rights such as due process, placing them outside any reasonable definition of "free," but the United States now has much more in common with such regimes than anyone may like to admit.
These countries also have constitutions that purport to guarantee freedoms and rights. But their governments have broad discretion in denying those rights and few real avenues for challenges by citizens -- precisely the problem with the new laws in this country.
The list of powers acquired by the U.S. government since 9/11 puts us in rather troubling company.
Assassination of U.S. citizens
President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)
Indefinite detention
Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism. While Sen. Carl Levin insisted the bill followed existing law "whatever the law is," the Senate specifically rejected an amendment that would exempt citizens and the administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal court. The administration continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for "prolonged detention.")
Arbitrary justice
The president now decides whether a person will receive a trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal, a system that has been ridiculed around the world for lacking basic due process protections. Bush claimed this authority in 2001, and Obama has continued the practice. (Egypt and China have been denounced for maintaining separate military justice systems for selected defendants, including civilians.)
Warrantless searches
The president may now order warrantless surveillance, including a new capability to force companies and organizations to turn over information on citizens' finances, communications and associations. Bush acquired this sweeping power under the Patriot Act in 2001, and in 2011, Obama extended the power, including searches of everything from business documents to library records. The government can use "national security letters" to demand, without probable cause, that organizations turn over information on citizens -- and order them not to reveal the disclosure to the affected party. (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan operate under laws that allow the government to engage in widespread discretionary surveillance.)
Secret evidence
The government now routinely uses secret evidence to detain individuals and employs secret evidence in federal and military courts. It also forces the dismissal of cases against the United States by simply filing declarations that the cases would make the government reveal classified information that would harm national security -- a claim made in a variety of privacy lawsuits and largely accepted by federal judges without question. Even legal opinions, cited as the basis for the government's actions under the Bush and Obama administrations, have been classified. This allows the government to claim secret legal arguments to support secret proceedings using secret evidence. In addition, some cases never make it to court at all. The federal courts routinely deny constitutional challenges to policies and programs under a narrow definition of standing to bring a case.
War crimes
The world clamored for prosecutions of those responsible for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, but the Obama administration said in 2009 that it would not allow CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for such actions. This gutted not just treaty obligations but the Nuremberg principles of international law. When courts in countries such as Spain moved to investigate Bush officials for war crimes, the Obama administration reportedly urged foreign officials not to allow such cases to proceed, despite the fact that the United States has long claimed the same authority with regard to alleged war criminals in other countries. (Various nations have resisted investigations of officials accused of war crimes and torture. Some, such as Serbia and Chile, eventually relented to comply with international law; countries that have denied independent investigations include Iran, Syria and China.)
Secret court
The government has increased its use of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has expanded its secret warrants to include individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations. In 2011, Obama renewed these powers, including allowing secret searches of individuals who are not part of an identifiable terrorist group. The administration has asserted the right to ignore congressional limits on such surveillance. (Pakistan places national security surveillance under the unchecked powers of the military or intelligence services.)
Immunity from judicial review
Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has successfully pushed for immunity for companies that assist in warrantless surveillance of citizens, blocking the ability of citizens to challenge the violation of privacy. (Similarly, China has maintained sweeping immunity claims both inside and outside the country and routinely blocks lawsuits against private companies.)
Continual monitoring of citizens
The Obama administration has successfully defended its claim that it can use GPS devices to monitor every move of targeted citizens without securing any court order or review. It is not defending the power before the Supreme Court -- a power described by Justice Anthony Kennedy as "Orwellian." (Saudi Arabia has installed massive public surveillance systems, while Cuba is notorious for active monitoring of selected citizens.)
Extraordinary renditions
The government now has the ability to transfer both citizens and noncitizens to another country under a system known as extraordinary rendition, which has been denounced as using other countries, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, to torture suspects. The Obama administration says it is not continuing the abuses of this practice under Bush, but it insists on the unfettered right to order such transfers -- including the possible transfer of U.S. citizens.
These new laws have come with an infusion of money into an expanded security system on the state and federal levels, including more public surveillance cameras, tens of thousands of security personnel and a massive expansion of a terrorist-chasing bureaucracy.
Some politicians shrug and say these increased powers are merely a response to the times we live in. Thus, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) could declare in an interview last spring without objection that "free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war." Of course, terrorism will never "surrender" and end this particular "war."
Other politicians rationalize that, while such powers may exist, it really comes down to how they are used. This is a common response by liberals who cannot bring themselves to denounce Obama as they did Bush. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), for instance, has insisted that Congress is not making any decision on indefinite detention: "That is a decision which we leave where it belongs -- in the executive branch."
And in a signing statement with the defense authorization bill, Obama said he does not intend to use the latest power to indefinitely imprison citizens. Yet, he still accepted the power as a sort of regretful autocrat.
An authoritarian nation is defined not just by the use of authoritarian powers, but by the ability to use them. If a president can take away your freedom or your life on his own authority, all rights become little more than a discretionary grant subject to executive will.
The framers lived under autocratic rule and understood this danger better than we do. James Madison famously warned that we needed a system that did not depend on the good intentions or motivations of our rulers: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
Benjamin Franklin was more direct. In 1787, a Mrs. Powel confronted Franklin after the signing of the Constitution and asked, "Well, Doctor, what have we got -- a republic or a monarchy?" His response was a bit chilling: "A republic, Madam, if you can keep it."
Since 9/11, we have created the very government the framers feared: a government with sweeping and largely unchecked powers resting on the hope that they will be used wisely.
The indefinite-detention provision in the defense authorization bill seemed to many civil libertarians like a betrayal by Obama. While the president had promised to veto the law over that provision, Levin, a sponsor of the bill, disclosed on the Senate floor that it was in fact the White House that approved the removal of any exception for citizens from indefinite detention.
Dishonesty from politicians is nothing new for Americans. The real question is whether we are lying to ourselves when we call this country the land of the free.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University. A version of this post first ran in the Washington Post on Sunday January 15, 2012.
부시 향해 질주하는 오바마, 인권의 적은 누구인가?
국방수권법(NDAA), 테러용의자 의심만으로 ‘무기한 감금’...인권침해 논란
김지윤 수습기자 2012.01.05 13:29
올해 초 발효되기 시작한 미국의 '국방수권법(NDAA)'이 심각한 인권침해 요소를 가지고 있어 논란이 되고 있다. 테러 용의자로 의심되는 미국 시민에 대해, 미국 대통령의 권한으로 정당한 법 절차를 중단시키고 그들을 무기한 감금하거나 고문할 수 있게 만든 조항이 포함되어 있는 것이다.
미 국방수권법이 한국 정부 입장에서는 이란산 원유 수입 금지 조치와 관련, 경제적 타격 부문에 많은 관심을 집중하고 있지만, 실상 미국 내 언론과 인권단체들은 ‘법 절차 없이 테러 용의자로 의심되는 미국 시민’에 대해 무기한 감금 및 고문(indefinite detention without trial)을 허용한 국방수권법이 헌법 정신에 위배된다며 반발하고 있는 것이다.
<뉴욕타임스>는 지난 해 12월 15일자 사설에서 “국방수권법은, 미국 시민을 재판 과정 없이 구금할 수 있는 권한을 차기 대통령에게 줘버린 것”이라 경고했다.
또한 국제인권단체 ‘Human Rights Watch'의 디렉터 조앤 마리너는 좌파 저널 <카운터펀치> 기고 글에서, “헌법 정신을 심각히 훼손하는 국방수권법 내 ‘무기한 감금 및 고문’조항을 거부하는 것이야말로 핵심 쟁점이며, 오바마 대통령은 반드시 구금 관련 조항을 폐지시켜야 한다”고 주장했다. 덧붙여 “오바마 정부의 공식적 목표를 갱신하여, 반드시 관타나모 수용소를 없애야”한다고 말했다.
 |
|
▲ [출처: 백악관] |
오바마 대통령은 취임 초, 이라크전에 대해 ‘정당한 이유가 없는 전쟁’이라 발언하는 등 부시 전 대통령과는 다른 색깔의 개혁적인 정책 추진으로 많은 기대를 모았다. 하지만 최근 인권을 심각하게 침해하는 국방수권법 발효, 월스트리트 점거 강제 철거를 비롯 이라크전을 주도한 부시 전 대통령에게 ‘애국자’라고 칭하기도 하며 점점 ‘부시화’되는 것 아니냐는 비판여론이 커지고 있다.
오바마의 보수화에 대한 비판여론은 지난 3일, 국제 해커 집단인 어나니머스(Anonymous)의 영상에서도 드러난다. 이들은 미국 아이오와 코커스(당원대회)를 “평화적으로 마비시키자”고 예고한 영상에서 “미국 민주당과 공화당은 모두 우리의 기대를 저버렸다. 양당은 미국 민주주의를 약화시키고 미국 인민을 대표하여 인류에 반하는 범죄들을 저지르고 있다”며 “민주 공화 양당은 똑같은 거대 기업들로부터 후원을 받고, 이 기업들은 정치 캠페인을 후원하고 로비스트를 고용해 미 행정부를 조종한다”고 개탄했다.
또한, “이 정당들의 예비선거와 코커스는 대중들이 거대 기업의 사적 이익에 봉사하는 후보들에 투표하는 정교한 사기책의 일부일 뿐”이라며 “이 정당들은 수천만의 인민들을 빈곤의 나락으로 떨어뜨리고 있다. 오바마 역시 부시와 다를 바 없는 살인자”라고 주장했다.
이에 월스트리트 점거운동 참가자들은 아이오와 코커스를 시작으로 진행되고 있는 민주당과 공화당의 대선후보 선거 캠프를 점거하기에 이르렀다.
이 같은 맥락에서 오바마 대통령이 인권을 침해하고 헌법정신을 훼손하는 ‘국방수권법(NDAA)'에 서명했다는 점은, 2005년 부시 전 대통령이 인권침해 논란에도 불구하고 연장시킨 ‘애국법(Patriot Act)’과 오버랩되며 시사점을 던져준다.
당시 애국법은 △휴대전화를 자주 바꾸며 이동하는 테러 용의자들에 대해 법원에서 각 전화번호별로 영장을 새로 발부받지 않고도 감청을 계속할 수 있도록 한 ‘이동식 도청(roving wiretap)’ 조항 △수사에 중요하다고 인정되는 기업 내부자료의 접근권을 인정하는 조항 △공인된 외국테러단체와 연계되지 않았지만 테러 용의점이 보이는 외국인을 감시할 수 있도록 하는 등, 당시 여야 양당 합의로 4년간 연장되어 큰 논란이 된 적 있다.
부시의 애국법과 오바마의 국방수권법 모두, 테러리즘을 관리하는 미국식 방법과 연관되어 있다. 인권침해적 조항으로 논란을 일으키고 초법적 신체 구속 방식으로 시민을 잠재적 범죄자 취급하는 것이 과연 오바마 정부의 ‘Yes, We Can'과 부합하는 것인지 의문이다. 
댓글 영역