Galindez writes: "Occupiers assembled in DC included retired Army Colonel Ann Wright, who resigned from the State Department in protest of the Iraq war. They went to Senator Carl Levin's office where they met with his Chief of Staff, David S. Lyles. Wright, who served 27 years in the military, told Lyles that she was afraid that provisions in the bill gave too much power to the military and it was setting a dangerous precedent by allowing the military to participate in civilian law enforcement."
Retired Army Colonel Ann Wright arriving at Senator Carl Levin's office where they met with his Chief of Staff David S. Lyles, 12/15/11. (photo:Scott Galindez/Reader Supported News)
Occupiers Protest Indefinite Detention Legislation
15 December 11
ccupiers from around the country held actions on Wednesday to protest provisions in the Defense Authorization Act, a bill that some civil liberties groups say could lead to the indefinite detention of American citizens by the military. Without a trial, no less.
Occupiers assembled in DC included retired Army Colonel Ann Wright, who resigned from the State Department in protest of the Iraq war. They went to Senator Carl Levin's office where they met with his Chief of Staff, David S. Lyles. Wright, who served 27 years in the military, told Lyles that she was afraid that provisions in the bill gave too much power to the military and it was setting a dangerous precedent by allowing the military to participate in civilian law enforcement. Other Occupiers rallied at the White House, calling for the President to veto the legislation.
(photo:Scott Galindez/Reader Supported News)
President Obama originally threatened to veto the bill, but his "concerns" were addressed in conference. Within hours of the mic check the House voted 283-136 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act...despite impassioned opposition that crossed party lines, with Democrats splitting on the bill and more than 40 Republicans opposing it. The Senate is expected to follow suit on Thursday sending the bill to the President's desk.
While opponents had looked to President Barack Obama to defend what they see as a fresh attack on American freedom, a statement released by White House press secretary Jay Carney dampened those hopes:
"After intensive engagement by senior administration officials and the President himself, the administration has succeeded in prompting the authors of the detainee provisions to make several important changes," the statement said. "While we remain concerned about the uncertainty that this law will create for our counterterrorism professionals, the most recent
changes give the President additional discretion in determining how the law will be implemented, consistent with our values and the rule of law, which are at the heart of our country's strength," and it continued, "We have concluded that the language does not challenge or constrain the president's ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the American people," the statement said, although it added that if the uncertainty raised by the legislation does impede investigations, the White House expects lawmakers to write a fix.
(photo:Scott Galindez/Reader Supported News)
One of the major changes was shifting to the White House the responsibility for determining who does not have to be detained forever by the military. In an earlier version of the bill, the Department of Defense made the call. And while the bill makes the military the default investigator for Islamic terrorism cases, new provisions assert that the FBI and other civil law enforcers still have the authority to investigate terrorism and interrogate suspects.
Levin's Chief of staff David Lyles argued that the provisions only codify existing law created by the Supreme Court in US v Hamdi. When asked if Senator Levin would support legislation to codify the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, Lyles said "No".
Opponents of the indefinite detention provisions have argued that, although it is true Americans have been held, the Supreme Court has not ruled on the validity of those detentions. Writing those practices into law, they argue, goes further than anything the nation's founders ever would have contemplated.
"We are in danger of losing our most precious heritage not because a band of thugs threatens our freedom, but because we are at risk of forgetting who we are and what makes the United States a truly great nation," said Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), whose district includes Ground Zero. "In the last 10 years, we have begun to let go of our freedoms, bit by bit, with each new executive order, court decision and, yes, act of Congress.
"We have begun giving away our rights to privacy, our right to our day in court when the government harms us, and, with this legislation, we are continuing down the path of destroying the right to be free from imprisonment without due process of law," Nadler added.
Occupiers in Washington DC have called for another round of protests around the country on Sunday.
Text of Mic Check:
Mic check
Mic check
We the people
reject without reservation
Senate Bill 1867
the National Defense Authorization Act
which openly legalizes
the indefinite detention of
United States citizens
without due process
on U.S. soil.
We the People
Stand with
Our founding fathers
and denounce
Senate Bill 1867
as an act of war
against the American people
We the people
reject Senate Bill 1867's
re-definition of "battlefield"
to include space
inside U.S. borders
We the people
reject Senate Bill 1867
which allows the president
to order military personnel
to detain
any U.S. citizen
at home or abroad.
We the people
reject Senate Bill 1867
which overturns Posse Comitatus
and Habeus Corpus.
1867 DESTROYS OUR BILL OF RIGHTS
1867 DESTROYS OUR BILL OF RIGHTS
1867 DESTROYS OUR BILL OF RIGHTS
Scott Galindez was formerly the co-founder of Truthout, and is now the Political Director of Reader Supported News.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 15 June 2013
|
 15 June 2013
|
 15 June 2013
|
 16 June 2013
|
 16 June 2013
|
 16 June 2013
|
 17 June 2013
|
 16 June 2013
|
 15 June 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Martin Luther King, Jr.
ion. And we need legal challenges to go all the way to SCOTUS, even though it's right-wing.
I wonder whether they'll notice that the vast majority of Republicans, including some of the tea party endorsed candidates, voted FOR this monstrosity.
But the true "Tea Partiers", the true libertarians and constitutionali sts, ARE decrying it "all over the the place", vehemently. Even many false and highly deluded "conservatives" and "Republicans" are speaking out against it quite specifically, vocally and emphatically.
And, don't forget, most Democrats voted for it, too (more Dems than Repubs in the Senate two weeks ago---in other words, more than half of the Senators who voted 93-7 FOR the legislation).
Well, duh! Is there any other conclusion possible? Given that between 80% and 90% of the people our illustrious military sent to Guantanamo turned out to have absolutely no links to terrorism, you wonder how many Americans with no links to terrorism are going to disappear in the coming four years.
And given Pres Obama's less than sterling devotion to human rights that he's demonstrated in the past, it makes no difference that he's now the Decider instead of the military. He has no problem with warrantless surveillance of emails and phone calls. He has no problem with religious groups discriminating in hiring with federal funds. He has no problem with the most egregious provisions in the Patriot Act. And this guy taught Constitutional Law???
If you don't support the infrastructure on the long term your bases, the country’s success diminishes.
Spending money to control the world and providing extreme wealth to the very rich only helps to strengthen the extremely wealth’s position. This in turn creates a large number enemies, meaning the poor and middle class.
Our manufacturing base has moved oversea, along with the jobs. These companies who have reaped the benefits of developing their base in the US have move to a cheaper work force. Companies are not people they a group of stock holders that are not in many case even American. We need to tax the hell out of all companies who have moved their manufacturing and or headquarters over seas. This means tax what they manufacture and boycott their goods.
Most of the support of extremist come from people and organization who feel we as a country have wronged them, and most of the time they are right!
Ask your self why we seem to only try to spread our Democracy in place where our large corporations will make big bucks.
Hay people, put the shoe on the other foot. If some other self righteous group or country tried to come into our county and rid our government of its corrupt politicians we would probably fight them. That would be our corrupt politicians would have us the working people fight them.
then they can lock us all up and have all the slave labor and forced armies they need to invade any country with a tank of gas
RSS feed for comments to this post