NDAA Outrage

NDAA OutrageNDAA OUTRAGE

National Defense Authorization Act

GONV (Grizzled Old Nam Vet)

 

Trying to keep up the exposure to the NDAA here is an article from the Business Insider dated Jan 05, 2012, though it is posted in the BI Feb 23, 2013.

NDAA Outrage

 

National Defense Authorization Act Outrage Continues To Grow Online

David Seaman|January 05, 2012

This is day three of living in post-NDAA America.

In case you’ve been living under a particularly large and comfy rock, the NDAA is a radical and dangerous bill — which Barack Hussein Obama quietly signed into law on New Year’s Eve, while almost every American was preoccupied with New Year’s binge drinking. (His administration had previously vowed to veto the NDAA, before strangely reversing course and signing it into law. He issued a signing statement saying his administration would not use the controversial indefinite detention provisions. This promise, however, is not legally binding — and it also does not prevent future Presidents from detaining and torturing American citizens without the right to a trial or attorney, and without bringing formal charges against them. The signing statement is the legal equivalent of a Post-it note affixed to a manuscript.)

How bad is this law, really? Here are some experts:

Presidential candidate Ron Paul on NDAA: “…bold and dangerous attempt to establish martial law in America.”

Rep. Justin Amash: NDAA was “carefully crafted to mislead the public.”

Amnesty International: “Provisions that were snuck into the bill with little notice from mainstream media could spell indefinite detention without a hearing, keep Guantanamo open, and hinder fair trials.”

And Americans, despite some pro-Obama spin to the contrary, are definitely targeted by NDAA’s indefinite detention provisions. As Salon columnist and constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald explained: “Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill: This is simply false, at least when expressed so definitively and without caveats. The bill is purposely muddled on this issue which is what is enabling the falsehood.”

The American broadcast media has been eerily silent on NDAA’s passage into law, despite the fact that foreign newspapers and broadcast networks have been covering this as one of their top international stories.

Yesterday, however, FOX News began to let NDAA mentions seep into their news coverage. Which reminds me, folks! There is a grassroots movement to convince News Corporation chief Rupert Murdoch to invite me on FOX News, so that I can discuss the dangers posed by the NDAA, and SOPA, which is a radical Internet censorship bill Congress plans to vote on later this month. (SOPA would make online criticism of NDAA subject to government censorship and deletion. Profoundly scary. Google co-founder Sergey Brin has warned that SOPA “would put us on a par with the most oppressive nations in the world.”)

This Murdoch direct appeal isn’t too crazy a request, by the way: I’ve been on FOX twice before, once on FOX’s now defunct nationally syndicated morning show (which was a nightmare; dishonest producers), and then on FOX News proper (amazing experience; everyone was ‘nice,’ and the anchor even personally walked me out of the building after the show to talk more about the issue we were discussing on-air — passionate journalism!).

But enough self-aggrandizing for one morning! Here are NDAA reactions from others around the Web — online outrage has been steadily growing, as Americans realize their cherished civil rights protections and Bill of Rights are now as obsolete as last year’s iProduct.

Rupert Murdoch: “Obama decision on terrorist detention very courageous – and dead right!” via his Twitter. Reactions to this rather contrarian view were not polite, to say the least.

Author Naomi Wolf, with a warning for Congress: “I never thought I would have to write this: but – incredibly – Congress has now passed the National Defense Appropriations Act, with Amendment 1031, which allows for the military detention of American citizens. The amendment is so loosely worded that any American citizen could be held without due process. The language of this bill can be read to assure Americans that they can challenge their detention – but most people do not realize what this means: At Guantanamo and in other military prisons, one’s lawyer’s calls are monitored, witnesses for one’s defense are not allowed to testify, and one can be forced into nudity and isolation. Incredibly, ninety-three Senators voted to support this bill and now most of Congress: A roster of names that will live in infamy in the history of our nation, and never be expunged from the dark column of the history books.

They may have supported this bill because – although it’s hard to believe – they think the military will only arrest active members of Al Qaida; or maybe, less naively, they believe that ‘at most’, low-level dissenting figures, activists, or troublesome protesters might be subjected to military arrest. But they are forgetting something critical: History shows that those who signed this bill will soon be subject to arrest themselves.”

NDAA Outrage

The Ultimate Firearms Survival Plan
How To Prepare For After The Crisis

Click Here!