Skip to main content


Photo: Truthout.org

Weeks after Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges filed suit against President Obama in Federal District Court for egregiously violating the U.S. Constitution by signing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the US military has been conducting joint exercises with city police departments.  An LAPD press release states:

The Los Angeles Police Department will be providing support for a joint military training exercise in and around the great (sic) Los Angeles area.  This will be routine training conducted by military personnel, designed to ensure the military’s ability to operate in urban environments, prepare forces for upcoming overseas deployments, and meet mandatory training certification requirements.

NDAA, as the bill signed into law by Obama on New years Eve has come to be called, allows the indefinite military detentions of US citizens without charge or trial.  

CBS blithely noted last Tuesday:

If you notice a heavy military presence around downtown Los Angeles this week, don’t be alarmed — it’s only a drill.

The military deployed a Black Hawk, a helicopter that has served in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, and four OH-6 helicopters.  According to Truthout.org, at one point they flew just above the US Bank building downtown.

Hedges in an interview with Democracy Now speculated that, since the national security establishment, NSA, FBI and other agencies charged with protecting the country against terrorists actually lobbied against the NDAA, the true impetus for it was the fear among corporate elites of an expanding Occupy Wall Street movement this summer.

Hedges said:

"And I think, without question, the corporate elites understand that things, certainly economically, are about to get much worse. I think they’re worried about the Occupy movement expanding. And I think that, in the end—and this is a supposition—they don’t trust the police to protect them, and they want to be able to call in the Army."

This month Occupy DC continued to press Congress with the message of getting the influence of money out of politics. Reuters reported on Jan. 17th:

"Demonstrators from the Occupy movement rallied at the Capitol and congressional office buildings on Tuesday to protest against the influence of money on lawmakers....Occupy protesters from around the country who gathered on the Capitol's rain-soaked lawn carried signs saying, "Face it liberals, the Dems sold us out," "Congress for sale" and "Banksters of America.""

The influence of money on the political process has been well-researched and documented by citizen watchdog organizations such as MAPLight.org.  In a report relating to the TARP bank bailouts MAPlight.org found that congressmen who voted for TARP, the "Troubled Assets Relief Program," received nearly 50 percent more in campaign contributions from the financial services industry (an average of about $149,000) than congressmen who voted no.  

As Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces Obama must sign off on all deployments and exercises.  This would seem to apply especially to deployments as politically sensitive as those in direct violation of the spirit of Posse Comitatus, the post-Civil War law intended to bar the use of the military for domestic law enforcement.  This is a role for which the National Guard was designed in case of emergencies.


Blackhawk standard armaments, two M240H machine guns.

In his lawsuit against Obama and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA,) also known as the Homeland Battlefield Bill, Hedges charges in Count I of the official complaint:

The Homeland Battlefield Bill, §1031(C)(1) authorizes the indefinite detention, imprisonment and incarceration of U.S. citizens and other “covered persons” in the United States, including persons such as Plaintiff, without trial or judicial recourse in violation of the U.S. Constitution, Amendment V.

Full text of Hedges Complaint as Scribd document HERE.

The congressional drive to pass provisions which allow for the indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial was accompanied by wording in the bill which Congressman Justin Amash called “carefully crafted to mislead the public.”

This Friday, Feb. 3, is the Nationwide NDAA Congressional Protest.  The event's Facebook page states:

Americans across the country will gather outside congressional offices Feb. 3rd from noon to 7 p.m. to protest NDAA 2012 (H.R. 1540). You will find your protest location by looking to see how your congressmen voted. Look below - under house and senate. There is also a link so you can find the address to your congressman's local office where your protest will take place.

A number of recall campaigns have begun against congressmen and senators who voted in favor of NDAA, as well as other state-level actions which challenge and seek to nullify the detention of Americans provisions.  In Virginia, legislators in the House of Delegates have filed House Bill 1160 (HB1160) which “Prevents any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency or the armed forces of the United States in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of a United States citizen in violation of the Constitution of Virginia.”

(Roll call votes: Senate (86 “yes” - 13 “no”)....House (283 “yes” - 136 “no”))


OH-6 "Little Bird" armaments

BBC report on NDAA:

Related posts and blogs:

Arrests at White House Over NDAA Military Detention of Americans.

Recall the Traitors at blogspot.com

NDAA language analysis:

Section 1021

(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 forcesthat 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.

COMMENT: "Substantial support" of an "associated force" may imply citizens engaged in innocuous, First Amendment activities. Direct support of such hostilities in aid of enemy forces may be construed as free speech opposition to U.S. government policies, aid to civilians, or acts of civil disobedience. Rep. Tom McClintock opposed the bill on the House floor saying it: "specifically affirms that the President has the authority to deny due process to any American it charges with "substantially supporting al Qaeda, the Taliban or any 'associated forces'" — whatever that means. Would "substantial support" of an "associated force," mean linking a web-site to a web-site that links to a web-site affiliated with al-Qaeda? We don't know."

(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-- 84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

COMMENT: "Existing law" is Fourth Circuit in Jose Padilla.

Section 1022 "(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS":

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

COMMENT: Even if US citizens are not "required" to be detained by the military in terrorism cases, it is still "allowed."


EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes, that's right, Obama is the coming dictator (10+ / 0-)

    who will establish martial law and throw all good lefties in Guantanamo.

    Welcome to American North Korea, right?

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 12:17:14 PM PST

    •  no president should approve this (6+ / 0-)

      The US military has got zero business throwing its weight around inside US borders, and that's not just my opinion.

      It does say something bad about Obama that he sees no problem with this or is too weak to stand up to the people who do want it, but it's not "Obama is a dictator".

      Never attribute to stupidity what can be adequately explained by malice; stupid people couldn't hurt us so effectively.

      by Visceral on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 05:26:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  So much for Posse Comitatus. (7+ / 0-)

    You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

    by Johnny Q on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 12:20:27 PM PST

  •  I've mentioned this to you time and again... (9+ / 0-)

    ...and yet you persist in using gendered language.

    A number of recall campaigns have begun against congressmen and senators

    Congress is comprised of both men and women.

    Using "Congressmen" as the generic form referring to all members of Congress degrades and devalues the work done by many admirable women in Congress by rhetorically erasing them from existence.

    Use gender-neutral language in the future.

    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

    by JamesGG on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 12:29:25 PM PST

    •  Never mind the fact that you can't recall (8+ / 0-)

      a federally elected representative.

      "TEABAGGER=Totally Enraged About Blacks And Gays Getting Equal Rights."

      by second gen on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 12:53:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was letting that one slide for now... (6+ / 0-)

        ...since that wasn't really the focus of the diary, and Mr. Lopez has demonstrated in the past that he isn't really interested in actually discussing the inconvenient fact that even if one takes his rather novel interpretation of the Constitution, wherein the Tenth Amendment permits recalls (and, in the process, all but obliterates the 17th Amendment), Congress could simply decide to invalidate the results of any recall election by any number of means using the enumerated powers given to them under Article I.

        But that problem does continue to exist as well, yes.

        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

        by JamesGG on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 01:55:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Laws are passed by legislators. (10+ / 0-)

    The executive signs off to indicate compliance and a willingness to carry out the laws.  Congress has persisted in pretending that the executive presents the legislation and both Houses just rubber stamp or reject consideration.  This is a dishonest position for them to take, but consistent with the effort to avoid their obligations.  (Privatization is a continuing strategy in pursuit of that goal--and to reward their supporters with contracts).
    The AUMF should have been repealed long ago.  So, for that matter, should the PATRIOT Act be axed.  
    As members of the House and Senate seek election, instead of paying attention to how much money the candidates have collected, we should inquire about their legislative agenda.  Individuals who plan on depriving citizens of human rights should not be elected.

    People to Wall Street: "LET OUR MONEY GO"

    by hannah on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 12:42:55 PM PST

    •  Well They Lie About Their Agenda, as Wingers Did (4+ / 0-)

      in numbers of the state running in 2010. Inquiry doesn't help with that. And if we're going to stop them "being" elected we have to find some way to inform the masses. Absent that there are plenty of such politicians being elected.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 01:05:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Time to get started. (0+ / 0-)

        While worrying about the Presidency is energizing, what I think we really need to focus on is the Congress.  The tradition of buying the citizenry off by "bringing home the bacon" (which we contributed in the first place) needs to be rejected.  Ditto the rationale that agents who promise to target some other group for deprivation are going to do right by their constituents.  The hardships deprivators are willing to visit on others are going to be visited on us next, because deprivators are obsessed and the obsessed never rest.  So, anyone who promises to attack or deprive or denigrate someone else should be rejected as a candidate for public service.

        People to Wall Street: "LET OUR MONEY GO"

        by hannah on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 02:01:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  So the military will train, and the LAPD "support" (12+ / 0-)

    Which to my reading means a small unit of soldiers will train in some urban warfare exercise, and the LAPD will perform crowd and traffic control in the area where the training occurs.

    Or to be explicit, this is not a story about soldiers and police officers training together on the same exercise.

    Or IOW, where Mr Hedges said:

    "And I think, without question, the corporate elites understand that things, certainly economically, are about to get much worse. I think they’re worried about the Occupy movement expanding. And I think that, in the end—and this is a supposition—they don’t trust the police to protect them, and they want to be able to call in the Army."

    He was spreading a disingenuous mischaracterization. Or put another way, a bunch of CT BS.

  •  Obama must sign off on all deployments & exercises (9+ / 0-)

    Do you honestly believe the POTUS signs off on every training exercise on the platoon level? Really?

    Sure, if s/he hears about a specific training mission the POTUS can cancel it. But the POTUS does not personally review every officer's daily assignment list.

    •  Last I checked, POTUS was still C-In-C. (5+ / 0-)

      As Commander In Chief, he is responsible regardless of whether or not he signs off on every little detail.

      Deploying troops in American cities for the purpose of training for urban warfare is new. It's not like LA can teach the US military about Kabul or other foreign cities in which it expects to be killing people.

      It is training in the US for use in the US. That's the only reason for these kinds of exercises. They are training in LA to use force on the population of LA. They will train in Chicago on how to use force against the people of Chicago.

      More importantly, these exercises are probably intended merely to acclimatize American soldiers to using force against their fellow citizens.

      The Chilean Army did precisely the same thing for almost a year before the coup in 1973.

      •  lol @ CT bullshit n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Quicklund
      •  That is not the claim that was made (0+ / 0-)

        The claim was, that Obama personally authorizd this mission as per his daily routine.

        Yes, in a gerneral sense a leader is responsible for what hapens on his watch. That does not mean he micromanages every soldier's day.

        Training for urban warfare is NOT repeat NOT new. This is just the first time you've heard of it.

        No that qare not taining to fight the people of LA or Chicago. They are training to fight in an urban setting.  Soert of  like the thing the US Army did for 9 years running in Iraq

        You Chile parallel belongs in a comic book..

        •  You can't prove your claim (0+ / 0-)

          Anymore than I can. That's my point.

          It's not a "general sense" in which the CIC is responsible for what happens on his or her watch. It is true in a very specific way. That is what the Chain Of Command is for. So yes, whether he even knew about it before hand is irrelevant. If he doesn't know, that's because Panetta isn't telling him. And it's fair to say SECDEF knows all about this. IF POTUS doesn't want to know about deployments of combat troops in our biggest cities, then it's because he chooses not to know. That is a choice.

          As for training, that is done under circumstances which fit the mission. Ie, the DOD has built entire faux "communities" on their bases with which to train for various environments, including urban warfare. They build sets of towns and urban areas for training in those places. If you can tell me what LA has in common with Kabul or Tehran, please let me know. Simply being a city is not enough.

          Put simply, before Obama requested and received from Congress the power to arrest and imprison Americans with no legal process save a vague accusation, the Chile example would not have crossed my mind. But now that Obama has decided to take that power, all bets are off. People don't take powers, especially unconstitutional ones, they don't intend to use.

          We have the biggest military in the world, with bases in more than 120 countries--spending more than the rest of the planet combined. So why do they feel the need to train in downtown LA, Chicago and so forth? Even more importantly, why is no one even bothering to ask any questions about all this? The answer to that, I would suggest, says more about our society than it does POTUS.

          The fact is, you don't know what they are training for anymore than I do. The difference between us is that merely inquiring about these "training activities" is an affront to you. Thanks for illustrating that point.

    •  I found that dubious as well. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Quicklund

      Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

      by Wee Mama on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 02:04:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Deploying Blackhawks over L.A. in a joint (0+ / 0-)

      exercise with LAPD, in possible violation of Posse Comitatus, is not something he will know nothing about.  They pay attention to the things people can see and might cause a stir, not like a shooting exercise in the desert.  Obama knew about it and approved it, or was told he had no choice by his masters.

      •  Blackhawk, singular. (0+ / 0-)

        Which lets the reader know it a very small exercise.

        No, it is not up to the President to approve teh flight plan of a single helicopter. Some functionary in the FAA most likely was involved. Because no, it is not a violation of the P.C. for the military to train, or for a military aircraft to fly in a municipal airspace.

        Consider joining the reality-based someday.

      •  And it is NOT A JOINT excercise (0+ / 0-)

        The military will train, the LAPD will provide "support".  You know, control traffic around the training location.

        But I'll let you get back to your CT fantasy.

  •  This is incomplete information: (14+ / 0-)

    These kinds of exercises have been going on for years: see my comment here.   So when Hedges says

    the true impetus for it was the fear among corporate elites of an expanding Occupy Wall Street movement this summer.

    Hedges (as usual) doesn't know what he's talking about.  

    Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

    by pico on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 01:16:09 PM PST

  •  What gets lost in the NDAA discussions? (6+ / 0-)

    The Due Process Guarantees Act of 2011 for one thing. Sen. Feinstein proposed a resolution to counter the NDAA last December. Nobody talks about that.

    Also, Ron Paul proposed repealing Section 1021 of the NDAA.

    Again, it was ignored in most of the news media and it wasn't covered here. This is one other possible means of dealing with the NDAA: a law or resolution to repeal the indefinite detention provisions. The first step in taking that action is talking about it.

    So say we all! Battlestar Galactica (re-imagined version)

    by nerve on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 01:16:56 PM PST

    •  She introduced a res against it before she voted (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nerve, MKSinSA, Emocrat, aliasalias, GeeBee

      for it.  Feinstaein should have done what Wyden, Merckel, Sanders, and Rand Paul did:  voted against it.

      http://www.govtrack.us/...

      Nay    MD    Cardin, Benjamin [D]
      Nay    OK    Coburn, Thomas [R]
      Nay    ID    Crapo, Michael [R]
      Nay    SC    DeMint, Jim [R]
      Nay    IL    Durbin, Richard [D]
      Nay    MN    Franken, Al [D]
      Nay    IA    Harkin, Thomas [D]
      Nay    UT    Lee, Mike [R]
      Nay    OR    Merkley, Jeff [D]
      Nay    KY    Paul, Rand [R]
      Nay    ID    Risch, James [R]
      Nay    VT    Sanders, Bernard [I]
      Nay    OR    Wyden, Ron [D]
      Yea    HI    Akaka, Daniel [D]
      Yea    TN    Alexander, Lamar [R]
      Yea    NH    Ayotte, Kelly [R]
      Yea    WY    Barrasso, John [R]
      Yea    MT    Baucus, Max [D]
      Yea    AK    Begich, Mark [D]
      Yea    CO    Bennet, Michael [D]
      Yea    NM    Bingaman, Jeff [D]
      Yea    CT    Blumenthal, Richard [D]
      Yea    MO    Blunt, Roy [R]
      Yea    AR    Boozman, John [R]
      Yea    CA    Boxer, Barbara [D]
      Yea    MA    Brown, Scott [R]
      Yea    OH    Brown, Sherrod [D]
      Yea    NC    Burr, Richard [R]
      Yea    WA    Cantwell, Maria [D]
      Yea    DE    Carper, Thomas [D]
      Yea    PA    Casey, Robert [D]
      Yea    GA    Chambliss, Saxby [R]
      Yea    IN    Coats, Daniel [R]
      Yea    MS    Cochran, Thad [R]
      Yea    ME    Collins, Susan [R]
      Yea    ND    Conrad, Kent [D]
      Yea    DE    Coons, Chris [D]
      Yea    TN    Corker, Bob [R]
      Yea    TX    Cornyn, John [R]
      Yea    WY    Enzi, Michael [R]
      Yea    CA    Feinstein, Dianne [D]
      Yea    NY    Gillibrand, Kirsten [D]
      Yea    SC    Graham, Lindsey [R]
      Yea    IA    Grassley, Charles [R]
      Yea    NC    Hagan, Kay [D]
      Yea    UT    Hatch, Orrin [R]
      Yea    NV    Heller, Dean [R]
      Yea    ND    Hoeven, John [R]
      Yea    TX    Hutchison, Kay [R]
      Yea    OK    Inhofe, James [R]
      Yea    HI    Inouye, Daniel [D]
      Yea    GA    Isakson, John [R]
      Yea    NE    Johanns, Mike [R]
      Yea    WI    Johnson, Ron [R]
      Yea    SD    Johnson, Tim [D]
      Yea    MA    Kerry, John [D]
      Yea    IL    Kirk, Mark [R]
      Yea    MN    Klobuchar, Amy [D]
      Yea    WI    Kohl, Herbert [D]
      Yea    AZ    Kyl, Jon [R]
      Yea    LA    Landrieu, Mary [D]
      Yea    NJ    Lautenberg, Frank [D]
      Yea    VT    Leahy, Patrick [D]
      Yea    MI    Levin, Carl [D]
      Yea    CT    Lieberman, Joseph [I]
      Yea    IN    Lugar, Richard [R]
      Yea    WV    Manchin, Joe [D]
      Yea    AZ    McCain, John [R]
      Yea    MO    McCaskill, Claire [D]
      Yea    KY    McConnell, Mitch [R]
      Yea    NJ    Menendez, Robert [D]
      Yea    MD    Mikulski, Barbara [D]
      Yea    AK    Murkowski, Lisa [R]
      Yea    WA    Murray, Patty [D]
      Yea    NE    Nelson, Ben [D]
      Yea    FL    Nelson, Bill [D]
      Yea    OH    Portman, Robert [R]
      Yea    AR    Pryor, Mark [D]
      Yea    RI    Reed, John [D]
      Yea    NV    Reid, Harry [D]
      Yea    KS    Roberts, Pat [R]
      Yea    WV    Rockefeller, John [D]
      Yea    FL    Rubio, Marco [R]
      Yea    NY    Schumer, Charles [D]
      Yea    AL    Sessions, Jefferson [R]
      Yea    NH    Shaheen, Jeanne [D]
      Yea    AL    Shelby, Richard [R]
      Yea    ME    Snowe, Olympia [R]
      Yea    MI    Stabenow, Debbie Ann [D]
      Yea    MT    Tester, Jon [D]
      Yea    SD    Thune, John [R]
      Yea    PA    Toomey, Patrick [R]
      Yea    CO    Udall, Mark [D]
      Yea    NM    Udall, Tom [D]
      Yea    LA    Vitter, David [R]
      Yea    VA    Warner, Mark [D]
      Yea    VA    Webb, Jim [D]
      Yea    RI    Whitehouse, Sheldon [D]
      Yea    MS    Wicker, Roger [R]
      Not Voting    KS    Moran, Jerry [R]

  •  There is a parallel here: Chile 1973 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ralph Lopez, aliasalias

    In the run-up to the Chilean military conducting a very US-led coup d'etat in 1973, the Chilean Army conducted a long series of bogus "weapons search" raids in towns that were known to harbor antipathy to the Chilean Rightists.

    They conducted raids in search of non-existent weapons and never once found any illicit weapons among the unionists they searched. But what they did accomplish was acclimatize Chilean soldiers to using deadly force against their fellow citizens.

    So eventually, when the orders to round up and murder thousands of defenseless people came out, they were obeyed with mechanical efficiency.

    There is no reason for the US military to conduct "urban warfare" exercises in US urban centers... unless they are planning on conducting warfare inside the US.

  •  And Who Wrote The Bill That Obama Signed Into Law? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    truthhurtsaz, Geekesque, gramofsam1

    why Congress did.

    And who wrote Section 1021, and included it in  NDAA-2012 against Obama's expressed wishes? Why Congress did.  Actually Senator Carl Levin (D) is far more responsible for Section 1021, as are the 77 Senators who voted AYE for NDAA-2012, than Obama is. But it's all Obama's fault. Yea, right...

    BTW NDAA-2012 is the 50th consecutive NDAA - there's been one every year for the last 50 years. The acronym - pronounced "N-Da" - stands for National Defense Authorization Act. It covers the allocation of funds($) for the Defense Department.

    You should look it up, Mr Lopez, because you are so very wrong regarding so very much of NDAA-2012. For example NDAA-2012 is NOT AKA "the Homeland Battlefield Bill". But most importantly, those sections dealing with the detention of terrorists and their allies were nothing more than affirmations of powers that Congress granted in the Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists passed on Sept 14, 2001.

    I guess this too was Obama's fault. Also.

    I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Republican Party.

    by OnlyWords on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 02:40:56 PM PST

  •  What do you make of subsection (d) (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SquirrelWhisperer

    of Section 1021?

    (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

    As I read it, whatever the legality of indefinite detention before the NDAA was, that remains the law today. NDAA changes nothing.

    Remind me what we're all worked up about again?

    •  oh Cripes the legality of indefinite detention (0+ / 0-)

      before NDAA was the Fourth Circuit upholding Bush's authority to detain Jose Padilla forever, which never went to the Supreme Court because the Neocons didn't have a SCOTUS they liked.  Now they do.  The Neocons, the Liebermans, the Grahams, are who really run things when there is a weak president.

      •  What has changed in the composition of the (0+ / 0-)

        Supreme Court since the Bush administration realized they were going to get slapped back on Padilla?

        Let's see. Two conservative judges replaced by two conservatives. Two liberal judges replaced by two liberal judges. It still all comes down to Kennedy, and he wrote the majority opinion in Boumediene.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        If foreigners in Gitmo have habeas rights (and they do), surely you can't be suggesting that Americans don't?

  •  Oh for crap's sake. We ignore this at our peril. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bronte17, Ralph Lopez

    When I first saw Blackwater deployed in NOLA during Hurricane Katrina, I thought, "bad, bad precedent". Most people seemed oblivious.

    This health care system is a moral atrocity. Dr. Ralphdog

    by AllisonInSeattle on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 07:15:19 PM PST

  •  Politics is circular (0+ / 0-)

    If you go far enough left or right, you end up at the same place filled with loony conspiracy theories.

    I thought it was the righties who thought black helicopters manned by troops assigned to the UN or the Trilateral Commission were going to come to get them.  Now it's lefties who are worried about the same thing (except that it's probably troops who have been assigned to Goldman Sachs or the Bank of America or something).  It was nuts when the righties said it, and it's nuts now.

    PROUD to be a Democrat!

    by leevank on Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 08:15:58 PM PST

  •  This Is Nuts (0+ / 0-)

    First, Chris Hedges is grandstanding. He has no standing to sue the Obama Administration, and his suit will be tossed out without being heard.

    Second, read the entire bill. Cherry-picking it for the scary parts is both stupid and pointless.

    Third, who wrote the "language analysis"? Certainly not anyone who has been to law school.

  •  HERE IS WHY!....... (0+ / 0-)

    See this article in LA TIMES....
    U.S. officials see increasing threat of domestic attack from Iran
    http://tinyurl.com/...

    We are the 99% ... we will be heard.

    by LOrion on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 09:26:30 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site