National Defense Authorization Act Passes Senate, Requiring Indefinite Detention In US

"I say we should campaign to vote all 3 people (Boxer, Feinstein and Obama) out of office. I don't care if they are replaced by 3 clones of Michelle Bachmann whose last elected offices were the office of dog catcher. We need to send a message to these freaks that they are not welcome in Washington. "

We need to send a message to "these freaks' by electing bigger freaks? No thank you.

Occupy some common sense.

How much more can one journalist report what I believe is news or make my point like this article did? I can't say.

You should vote your conscience, regardless of the unintended consequences. The time for arguing that you should "vote for the lesser of two evils instead of the third party that you really want" is over. Besides, we are safer with Republican freaks in office anyway since the lazy ass Dems who are the current Obamatons and apologists for Obama will give the Bachmann clones the third degree and won't let them pass any of their agenda, as they did when Bush was in office and tried to push the more radical parts of his agenda. As it is, instead of people rising up against Bush's attempts to reform Social Security and defeating that straightaway, we have "compromises" and "grand bargains" that nibble at Social Security and Medicare, while later on people go completely asleep and/or cheer when the payroll tax cut is passed. The payroll tax cut will likely evolve into a permanent cut in funding for Social Security, since just like the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy, it will be too big a political pawn to give up, and any serious attempt to repeal it will likely be met with Republican cries of "No new taxes". This business of holding the payroll tax cut extension hostage to other things the Republicans want such as a prompt decision on the XL pipeline is a bunch of hogwash that should have George Orwell spinning in his grave.

Also, a bit of follow up is required since there were some questions as to the veracity of the claim that the NDAA does in fact allow/require the detention of US Citizens on US soil. Here is what I posted to the Green Party e-mail list this AM about this:

Let's try that again. This time I will actually go and read the law from the Congressional Record. This is what I find:

From the Congressional Record, located here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-12-12/pdf/CREC-2011-12-12-pt1-PgH8356-5.pdf

From Section 1021SEC.
1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE
ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED
STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS
PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION
FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE
(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
forces that 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.
(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.

[No mention is made in this section about exemptions for
Citizens or resident aliens]

SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN ALQAEDA
TERRORISTS
(a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER
LAW OF WAR.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the
United States shall hold a person described
in paragraph (2) who is captured in the
course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization
for Use of Military Force (Public
Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition
under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in
paragraph (1) shall apply to any person
whose detention is authorized under section
1021 who is determined—
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda
or an associated force that acts in coordination
with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of
planning or carrying out an attack or attempted
attack against the United States or
its coalition partners.

(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.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement
to detain a person in military custody
under this section does not extend to a lawful
resident alien of the United States on the
basis of conduct taking place within the
United States, except to the extent permitted
by the Constitution of the United
States.

[Note the title of this SECTION is "Military Custody
for foreign Alqaeda Terrorists", so of course
it doesn't apply to US Citizens or resident aliens, but Section 1021
fails to specifically exempt Citizens and
resident aliens from its requirements. It also looks like it is ok for my Mother to serve me Christmas dinner since I wasn't responsible for even aiding the Sept 11, 2011 attacks specifically, so harboring me (under 1021(b)(1) ) won't be a specific crime under this section. However, my actions as an activist who doesn't like drones could still be interpreted as "substantial support" for terrorism under this act (under Section 1021 (b) (2) ).]

So my conclusions and rehtoric remain unaltered from my rants of yesterday on Facebook, Twitter and elsewhere. I also said that the freaks named Obama, Feinstein and Boxer need to be voted out of office at any cost, even if this means that they are replaced by clones of Michelle Bachmann whos' last elected offices were those of Dog Catcher.

My representative, Anna Eshoo, voted no on this. I wrote her and thanked her for her vote. She wrote back with a thoughtful and detailed explanation of why she voted no. I noticed that, of those senators who voted no, 6 were democrats, 6 were republicans, and 1 was an independent. ALL representatives are coming up for election, so I think we should blanket all of those who voted yes with letters demanding to know why. We should find out which of the senators who voted yes are coming up for election, and ask them to explain themselves as well. Then we should publish a list of those who refused to explain themselves and encourage others to write to them as well. This is something that concerns ALL of us.