This is simply a head's up diary people, because everyone in our nation (esp. here on Daily Kos) needs to understand what is going on behind the scenes right now in Congress.
One of my favorite writers is Mike Whitney on Counterpunch, and I read everything he writes. This new story simply blew my mind.
Please be kind enough, to spread the word everywhere you can on this horrifying bill that is now working its way through Congress.
Inside the GOP's "Security Act"
By MIKE WHITNEY
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) is pushing a bill through congress that will repeal due process and give the President nearly-unlimited powers to wage war wherever and whenever he chooses without congressional approval. Because the language in the so-called Detainee Security Act of 2011 is (intentionally?) vague, it's impossible to know at whom it is directed. Is the real focus on suspects captured by the military in the so-called War on Terror or civilians who oppose US foreign policy? It's hard to say. Here's an excerpt from an article in Talking Points Memo that mulls over that same question:
"The new language eschews references to September 11, and instead centers the authorization on "armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces," though "associated forces" is not defined. It replaces the authority to target "organizations" and "persons" domestically with the power to target "all entities that continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad." ("Congress Poised To Give President Power To Continue GWOT Indefinitely", talkingpointsmemo.com)
snip....
Opposition to the Detainee Security Act of 2011, which is lumped together with the National Defense Authorization Act, has been minimal for the simple reason that the public has no idea what's going on. This is another stealth campaign by the sleazebag-wing of GOP. The NDAA isn't even on anyone's radar, yet. But 32 (progressive) Democrats led by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) oppose many of the bill's provisions, particularly those that would "allow the war on terrorism to continue indefinitely" and which would "formalize an indefinite detention system at Guantanamo." ("Congress Poised To Give President Power To Continue GWOT Indefinitely", talkingpointsmemo.com)
http://www.counterpunch.org/...
I believe that I am well within copyright non-violation to reprint the letter that Rep. John Conyers and other Democrats have signed: It is a matter of public record:
Washington, D.C.— Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) today sent a letter to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon requesting that the Committee hold hearings on several controversial provisions found in the “Detainee Security Act” relating to detainee, counterterrorism, and war powers policies. The letter expresses the view that these significant potential policy changes require significant debate and, thus, should not be included in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The 2012 NDAA is scheduled to be marked up in the House Armed Services Committee tomorrow, Wednesday, May 11, 2011.
The text of the letter follows:
Dear Chairman McKeon:
We are writing concerning certain troubling provisions in H.R. 968, the Detainee Security Act of 2011, which we understand are likely to be considered as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of the Fiscal Year of 2012. Whatever one thinks about the merits of the Detainee Security Act, it is a serious enough departure from current counterterrorism policy and practice to merit consideration apart from the NDAA. Accordingly, we request that you use your chairmanship in the House Armed Services Committee to immediately hold hearings so that the public can further consider the various provisions within the Detainee Security Act.
Among the many troubling aspects of the Detainee Security Act are provisions that expand the war against terrorist organizations on a global basis. The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) of 2001 was widely thought to provide authorization for the war in Afghanistan to root out al Qaeda, the Taliban, and others responsible for the 9/11 attacks. That war has dragged on for almost ten years, and after the demise of Osama Bin Laden, as the United States prepares for withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Detainee Security Act purports to expand the "armed conflict" against the Taliban, al Qaeda, and "associated forces" without limit. By declaring a global war against nameless individuals, organizations, and nations "associated" with the Taliban and al Qaeda, as well as those playing a supporting role in their efforts, the Detainee Security Act would appear to grant the President near unfettered authority to initiate military action around the world without further congressional approval. Such authority must not be ceded to the President without careful deliberation from Congress.
The Detainee Security Act also unwisely requires that all terrorism suspects eligible for detention under the AUMF be held exclusively in military custody pending further disposition. The practical effect of this provision will be to undermine the ability of the FBI and local law enforcement to participate in counterterrorism operations, which could have serious negative impacts on national security. Moreover, in a recent hearing in the House Armed Services Committee, Department of Defense General Counsel Jeh Johnson noted that, rather than help clarify detention authority, the military custody provision in the Detainee Security Act would create serious litigation risk for the government.
The Detainee Security Act contains several additional troublesome provisions that relate to Guantanamo. The Detainee Security Act in effect requires that terrorism suspects be tried in military commissions, thereby cutting out Article III federal courts from conducting terrorism trials. This is unwise, as Article III federal courts have convicted over 400 individuals of terrorism-related offenses since 9/11. Military commissions, mired by legal problems and controversy, have convicted only six. The Detainee Security Act would also make permanent current transfer restrictions on Guantanamo detainees, further undermining the ability of the President to close the offshore detention facility. In our view, restricting the President in this way is unnecessary to promote a robust national security that keeps the American people safe.
Whatever one thinks of these various proposals in the Detainee Security Act, it is clear that they will have serious consequences and should be examined extensively. We therefore request that you use your chairmanship to immediately call hearings on Detainee Security Act so that the American people have an opportunity to consider the serious impacts that this legislation could have on our national security.
Sincerely,
32 Members joined the letter. They include Representatives Steve Cohen (D-TN), Peter Defazio (D-OR), John Dingell (D-MI), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Bob Filner (D-CA), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Alcee Hastings (D-FL), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Michael Honda (D-CA), Jesse Jackson (D-IL), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Barbara Lee (D-CA), John Lewis (D-GA), Jim McDermott (D-WA), James McGovern (D-MA), George Miller (D-CA), Jim Moran (D-VA), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Donald Payne (D-NJ), David Price (D-NC), Bobby Rush (D-IL), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Bobby Scott (D-VA), Jackie Speier (D-CA), Fortney “Pete” Stark (D-CA), Bennie Thompson (D-MS), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Henry Waxman (D-CA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and David Wu (D-OR).
http://conyers.house.gov/...
President Obama, did ask for these additional powers, did he? Makes you kind of wonder, what the hell is going on behind the scenes. Makes me kind of wonder, what kind of powerful money interests are all working together (friends of the MIC) to push this bill through, now that we can honestly say: That the Mission has been Accomplished.
Makes me wonder why we as Democrats only have 33 Democratic members of the House that came forward to sign their names against this imperial power grab, to continue destroying so much in the basic ways in which the three branches of our Government are suppose to work under our Constitution.
Not only does this stink like a 10 day old fish, it reeks of the way that 'both sides' are trying to sneak this through right under our noses.
I applaud Howard Dean and so many other progressive leaders and websites, for beginning movements nationwide to a sane end to the 'endless wars,' and to restore our Constitution.
So much of what has gone on in our nation since 9/11 (and before) has been filled with the guise of 'transparency' when there is none. I remember exactly how Phil Gramm was able to sneak into the Senate on a dark Christmas Eve and this is what happens, when we take our eyes off of what is going on behind the scenes in Congress:
Everyone agrees: today’s regulatory structure is not designed or sufficient for today’s financial markets. A modern regulatory structure would, for instance, impose capital/leveraging limits on issuers of complex derivatives, such as credit default swaps—just as commercial bankers and insurers are required to maintain sufficient reserves to cover losses. But that’s illegal, thanks to the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, snuck through by Phil Gramm during Clinton’s waning days.
That regulation specifically banned regulation of credit default swaps. I follow all the major econoblogs via Google Reader—it’s easy for me to search them all. None of them has discussed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (aside from passing mentions and—from Tyler Cowen—promises of future posts).
One exception: Justin Fox, who offers this brief pithy history:
Its provisions were slipped into an appropriations bill in conference committee and passed the House and Senate the very next day. It was never debated in committee or on the floor. Lame-duck President Bill Clinton signed it into law six days later. And they say Paulson and Bernanke are trying to move too fast!
My analogy is simple: Don't for a single second think that to be forewarned to to be forearmed. So much, these days is done under the radar, as Mike Whitney says, and a huge hat tip to a great writer, on the Web these days.
Spread the word, because if we do not, who will?
Thanks as always.
Ms. B.