Amy Goodman - Democracy Now: NDAA a Radical Expansion of Indefinite Detention

[limpyhobbler]

[sabrina 1]

1. Amy Goodman asked a very good question that no one has yet asked that I know of about this

horrendous bill. Who is behind it? Who is going to profit from it? And why is Carl Levin pushing it? I just lost all respect for that man. No one in the right mind would trust any government with this kind of legislation and as the ACLU lawyer said, 'the military doesn't want it, most national security leaders have come out against it'. So who is it that has more power to influence our legislators than all these people?

I wish we had investigative journalists in this country. This definitely needs looking into to see who the power behind this government really is.

And what right does this country to go into any country in the world, ignore their sovereignty and grab people to put away for life without charge?

There really aren't words that can adequately describe what a travesty this is for this country.

[limpyhobbler]

3. Yes it is quite shocking when all these terrorism experts in the government opposed to it...

I'm not sure which was more surprising — that the majority of senators ignored the pleas of countless constituents, or that they also ignored every top national security official opposed to the provisions.

Opposition to the detention provisions came from
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta,
CIA Director David Petraeus,
FBI Director Robert Mueller,
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper,
White House Advisor for Counterterrorism John Brennan, and
DOJ National Security Division head Lisa Monaco.

The Senate ignored them all.

emphasis and formatting added, source: http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/NDAA

There was also the piece in the newspaper by the two retired Marine four-star generals, urging the President to veto this.

This budget bill — which can be vetoed without cutting financing for our troops — is both misguided and unnecessary: the president already has the power and flexibility to effectively fight terrorism.

One provision would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past. Some claim that this provision would merely codify existing practice. Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States — and hand Osama bin Laden an unearned victory long after his well-earned demise.

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/opinion/guantanamo-forever.html

It's quite upsetting. Who is driving this? Just Senators? ??

[sabrina 1]

5. I doubt it is just Senators. Why would they come up with this on their own?

There is something very odd about this. I think Amy Goodman or the ACLU lawyer said it was 'sudden' and 'rushed through'.

While it's true that what we now have is just as bad, and in the case of political assassinations eg, this president has already ordered several of them, which is way worse than detention where at least an innocent person some day, might get some justice. But ordering the killing of American citizens without charge or trial, frankly I have no words to describe how I feel about THIS PRESIDENT, the one we thought would begin the process of turning all this around, has so betrayed that trust we placed in him.

Still, why add more bad law that will have to be rescinded some day anyhow, IF we are to preserve this democracy? I really would like to know whose idea this was, and as Amy asked, is there money in it somehow? Maybe Halliburton needs to build more cages? Cheney maybe on behalf of his corporate friends? He was on Capitol Hill recently.

Very strange to be pushing this especially with the election coming up.

Thank you for the links, btw.

[JJW]

2. The Gov ususally gets things very wrong

Like using sexed-up intelligence to invade Iraq. Indefinite detention of US citizens without trial. Congress and the President have gone bunkers.

[Solly Mack]

4. K&R

[enough]

6. k&r (nt)