posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 10:09 AM
reply to post by eLPresidente
Yeah I wasn't trying to lessen Obama's guilt there, just broaden the scope so that people truly understand what we're facing and how it's being
allowed to happen. Our checks and balances system is broken, maybe it has been broken for a long time.
Chris Hedges wrote a great editorial this morning...
His review of Section 1021 (b)(2)
The section permits the military to detain anyone, including U.S. citizens, who “substantially support”—an undefined legal term—al-Qaida,
the Taliban or “associated forces,” again a term that is legally undefined. Those detained can be imprisoned indefinitely by the military and
denied due process until “the end of hostilities.” In an age of permanent war this is probably a lifetime. Anyone detained under the NDAA can be
sent, according to Section (c)(4), to any “foreign country or entity.” This is, in essence, extraordinary rendition of U.S. citizens. It empowers
the government to ship detainees to the jails of some of the most repressive regimes on earth.
This paragraph instantly grabbed me.
If we lose in Hedges v. Obama—and it seems certain that no matter the outcome of the appeal this case will reach the Supreme Court—electoral
politics and our rights as citizens will be as empty as those of Nero’s Rome. If we lose, the power of the military to detain citizens, strip them
of due process and hold them indefinitely in military prisons will become a terrifying reality. Democrat or Republican. Occupy activist or
libertarian. Socialist or tea party stalwart. It does not matter. This is not a partisan fight. Once the state seizes this unchecked power, it will
inevitably create a secret, lawless world of indiscriminate violence, terror and gulags. I lived under several military dictatorships during the two
decades I was a foreign correspondent. I know the beast.
Further down in the editorial he goes into real life moments, that should scare the living daylights out of us, ways in which whether under AUMF or
Section 1021 are being used NOW to potentially set precedence for circumstances in which American citizens can be indefinitely detained, whether home
Alexa O’Brien, another plaintiff and a co-founder of the US Day of Rage, learned after WikiLeaks released 5 million emails from Stratfor, a
private security firm that does work for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Marine Corps and the Defense Intelligence Agency, that Stratfor
operatives were trying to link her and her organization to Islamic radicals, including al-Qaida, and sympathetic websites as well as jihadist
ideology. If that link were made, she and those in her organization would not be immune from detention.
The government attempted in court last week to smear Sami Al-Hajj, a journalist for the Al-Jazeera news network who was picked up by the U.S.
military and imprisoned for nearly seven years in Guantanamo. This, for me, was one of the most chilling moments in the hearing.
“Just calling yourself a journalist doesn’t make you a journalist, like Al-Hajj,” Loeb told the court. “He used journalism as a cover. He was
a member of al-Qaida and provided Stinger missiles to al-Qaida.”
Al-Hajj, despite Loeb’s assertions, was never charged with any crimes. And the slander by Loeb only highlighted the potential for misuse of this
provision of the NDAA if it is not struck down.
Granted Al-Hajj isn't American (all indefinite detention is disgusting and wrong) you can see how despite the Government saying journalists will be
protected, they get to define whether you are a journalist or not.
edit on 11-2-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)