Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Occupy Wall Street Protests National Defense Act!

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 3, 2012, 5:54 p.m. EST by arealpolitik (154)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

According to information I read in the Occupy Wall Street Forum recently, that organization has issued a new “Call” to “Let our government know the People will not tolerate any more attacks on our rights.”

I gather that this action by Occupy Wall Street (OWS) concerns the recent signing into law of The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which some people apparently see as a violation of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to The Constitution of The United States. That is my take on it, anyway!

According to the article I was reading on the OWS website there may also be some concerns about the effect that the NDAA may have on “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights” as well as “The International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.”

I have been paying close attention to some of the concerns being drawn surrounding this “National Defense Authorization Act” of late and what I can glean from what I have learned is that there is a lot of fear out there that this law has a capacity to allow any American Citizen to be identified in association with one form of terrorism or another and then that American Citizen could theoretically be subject to indefinite detention without benefit of any due process.

I guess the concept being drawn by some of those who oppose this legislation butts up against what they see as The Founding Father’s “Promise” that the State would never be able to deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

In my opinion, there is some real fear being voiced in some circles that, under the proper circumstances, almost anyone or any group who comes to the attention of certain governing bodies and is, for one reason or another, declared to be involved in activities that might pose a threat to America, could be declared as “Terrorists” and come under the jurisdiction of this Defense Act.

I understand that the concern is that almost anyone who dares to mount any kind of public outcry against injustices, real or perceived, could be detained under this law and that the law, itself, has a certain feel and flavor of something that doesn’t fit in a Democracy so much as it might in a less tolerant societal configuration.

As I see things, this whole flap around The National Defense Authorization Act is big and complex, and maybe a little scary! It does seem to me to be causing a lot of anxiety. There are also some questions floating around about why the “Media” aren’t giving it more attention. I have heard that a lot of foreign News sources are giving this thing a lot of attention and, in some cases, it is reportedly among some of their top news stories.

There seem to be some opinions being expressed, here and there, that the NDAA might be some form of revocation of American Civil Rights and in even more extensive conceptualizations, is reportedly being seen even as a theoretical form of an imposition of martial law.

Read More: http://www.thejeffersontree.com/occupy-wall-street-protests-national-defense-act/

1 Comments

1 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13646) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

This whole thing stems from confusion over whether al qaida operatives who are apprehended by American authority are to be treated as Prisoners of War or common criminals.

Treating them as Prisoners of War has some inherent draw backs - and isn't called for today. Some of these drawbacks include:

and the potential at some point in the future that U.S. citizens can be deprived of their Constitutional rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

It is a serious consideration - that is a fact - but in my opinion hysteria is counter productive.

We must focus on all of the policy provisions that support indefinite detention, and get them repealed.

This includes provisions barring prosecution of gitmo detainees.

Closing Gitmo and ending indefinite detention are the same thing.

People have been giving me flack for it - I don't much care - the President campaigned on a promise to close Gitmo, Congress forbid it. Now they have gone even further.

Here:

this is how it works:

President Obama signs a bill to fund the Defense Department, though he's upset with one provision that prohibits bringing Guantánamo detainees to the US for trial. He vows to fight the restrictions.

The president registered his opposition in a two-page signing statement issued shortly after he approved the Defense Department funding bill.

President Obama strongly objected on Friday to provisions of the 2011 Defense Authorization Act that prevent the military from transferring Guantánamo detainees to the US for trial.

.

The president had made a pledge that he would close Guantánamo within a year of taking office, and Attorney General Eric Holder sought to lay the groundwork for public trials of high profile Al Qaeda suspects in the US justice system – including alleged 9/11 mastermind Khaled Shaikh Mohammed.

But those efforts are now stalled.

and the date again: January 7, 2011*

and you can read the rest of the CSM article here


On March 7, 2011, President Barack Obama signed an executive order making a number of changes to policies regarding those detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In a reversal of his previous policy, the order resumes military trials for Gitmo detainees. It also establishes a "periodic review" process for for long-held Guantanamo detainees who have not been charged, convicted or designated for transfer, "but must continue to be detained because they 'in effect, remain at war with the United States,'" according to a White House fact-sheet.

The new policy was viewed by many media outlets as an acknowledgment by the administration that it could not keep Obama's campaign promise to close the Guantanamo facility.

Mr. Obama said the restrictions on transfers represent a “dangerous and unprecedented challenge to critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantánamo detainees.” `

the rest of this politifact.com article here


Point Being

  • this is how they do - attach bullshit to the spending bill. The Congress tied the President's hands early in 2011 with defense authorization that included

    • "prohibits bringing Guantánamo detainees to the US for trial"
  • Now we have a new defense authorization spending bill - NDAA - that includes further revision to the policy of indefinite detention.

Again, his hands have been tied by using the vehicle of defense spending bills to push bad policy on the public

[Removed]

[Removed]