Thursday, January 5, 2012

NDAA & You; The Straight Up

Much has been said about the signing of NDAA. There have been wild accusations, on the one hand, and‎ downplaying on the other. There have been doctored video clips posted on the internet, which big name news outfits ran with as gospel, claiming that President Obama personally called for this bill to include the arrest, willy-nilly,  &  infinite detention of, American Citizens on US Soil for no particular reason...

 Even as this dark practical joke was brought to light, the very news agencies that alerted the world about it, in the first place, are oddly silent now. I don't think that's unintentional, of course. There's big money behind both The News, if that's what we're calling it, and politics, alike. One might even suppose that certain 'news men' would enjoy the attention, or any of the spoils there of. But that's not what really matters here.

The language as it stands in sections 1031 & 1033 is ambiguous enough to need to be changed. I repeat, need  to be.

It's not that it actually threatens the freedom & rights of American Citizens on an actual day to day basis, as it has specific language to prevent that, installed at the equally specific request of the Obama administration, in a word:

"The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

What could be clearer?

This also deals only and specifically with those the President, himself, has asked to have detained.

"Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war."

So, unless the President gets a slip of paper with your name on it, and you don't happen to be an American Citizen or legal alien (It doesn't apply to either), then you're all good. For now.

Those covered under this Law of War deal are described here, exactly as:

"Section 1031 excerpt:

(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
 (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
 (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."

This being the case, I, personally, don't believe Barack Obama is going to start sending in the Marines. Nobody is going to GitMo for wearing a burka in a Facebook modeling shoot.
Christ, the guy who posted his hatred for Obama, including: "...kill that fucken nigger & his monkey children" is still walking around loose somewhere, from what I understand. If not him, why you?

"The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it," Obama wrote in the signing statement.

Of course, there are those who love this shit in any election year.
It's a constitutional debate, they'll say.
The biggest news agencies in the free world just collectively tossed out a lie about the President insisting on the power to put us all in camps, during an election year, and it's coincidence? Not likely.
They don't even have to pick a side. Their ratings are sky rocketing right now, as aneurisms abound.
They're spinning you out, me out, US OUT... just like Wall Street did.
They're betting on either side & both of them, as long as rating shares go up, they DON'T CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH.

Then there's the real issue. The language of sections 1031 & 1033 is ambiguous enough to make 4 star generals, the ACLU, Amnesty International and a lot of other people really fucking nervous. Consider that these questionable words were tamed down from the original bill, authored by, among others, John McCain. I watched him during the debates on this bill, asking why, exactly, we couldn't have the military using predator drones on US citizens in Providence, Rhode Island.
He really didn't understand why not.

So, should this law stand as it is, we're looking at trouble. Not from Obama, although I wish he'd step up to something a little more aggressively, but beyond Obama.  Rick Perry with the power to incarcerate at will? Not good. At all. He'd start gay witch hunts in all of the 57 states (his count, not mine) before sundown. Rick Santorum hasn't really showed his cards, but funny disappearances happen under theocracies.

My point here is this: The language of this bill NEEDS to be changed, and the momentum has begun. It will require a legal process and a hearing by the Supreme court, if Congress can't do it, themselves. But then, they don't have a great accomplishment record right now.

It's also no mystery why this spread so far and generated so much hate in an election year. Because the Media wanted it to. And if you think Wall Street & the GOP don't have a majority of pull there, I wish you the best of luck.
You'll need it.

Link to the entire NDAA is here.
Section 1031 starts on page 361.

No comments: