RSN August 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Wolf writes: "Perhaps Congress assumes that it will always only be 'they' who are targeted for arrest and military detention: but sadly, Parliamentary leaders are the first to face pressure, threats, arrest and even violence when the military obtains the power to make civilian arrests and hold civilians in military facilities without due process. There is no exception to this rule."

Naomi Wolf, speaking at  the National Lawyers Guild Forum in New York, 01/23/09. (photo: Thomas Good/NLN)
Naomi Wolf, speaking at the National Lawyers Guild Forum in New York, 01/23/09. (photo: Thomas Good/NLN)



NDAA: Congress Signed Its Own Arrest Warrants

By Naomi Wolf, Naomi Wolf's Blog

02 January 12

 

Responding to the Senate's overwhelming passage of the 'Homeland Battlefield' bill, Ms. Wolf first published this piece on December 12, 2011. However, her argument took on new relevance over the weekend when President Obama used the media blackout of the holiday season to quietly sign the bill during a vacation in Hawaii. - JPS/RSN

 

never thought I would have to write this: but - incredibly - Congress has now passed the National Defense Appropriations Act, with Amendment 1031, which allows for the military detention of American citizens. The amendment is so loosely worded that any American citizen could be held without due process. The language of this bill can be read to assure Americans that they can challenge their detention - but most people do not realize what this means: at Guantanamo and in other military prisons, one's lawyer's calls are monitored, witnesses for one's defense are not allowed to testify, and one can be forced into nudity and isolation. Incredibly, ninety-three Senators voted to support this bill and now most of Congress: a roster of names that will live in infamy in the history of our nation, and never be expunged from the dark column of the history books.

They may have supported this bill because - although it's hard to believe - they think the military will only arrest active members of Al Qaida; or maybe, less naively, they believe that 'at most', low-level dissenting figures, activists, or troublesome protesters might be subjected to military arrest. But they are forgetting something critical: history shows that those who signed this bill will soon be subject to arrest themselves.

Our leaders appear to be supporting this bill thinking that they will always be what they are now, in the fading light of a once-great democracy - those civilian leaders who safely and securely sit in freedom and DIRECT the military. In inhabiting this bubble, which their own actions are about to destroy, they are cocooned by an arrogance of power, placing their own security in jeopardy by their own hands, and ignoring history and its inevitable laws. The moment this bill becomes law, though Congress is accustomed, in a weak democracy, to being the ones who direct and control the military, the power roles will reverse: Congress will no longer be directing and in charge of the military: rather, the military will be directing and in charge of individual Congressional leaders, as well as in charge of everyone else - as any Parliamentarian in any society who handed this power over to the military can attest.

Perhaps Congress assumes that it will always only be 'they' who are targeted for arrest and military detention: but sadly, Parliamentary leaders are the first to face pressure, threats, arrest and even violence when the military obtains the power to make civilian arrests and hold civilians in military facilities without due process. There is no exception to this rule. Just as I traveled the country four years ago warning against the introduction of torture and secret prisons - and confidently offering a hundred thousand dollar reward to anyone who could name a nation that allowed torture of the 'other' that did not eventually turn this abuse on its own citizens - (confident because I knew there was no such place) - so today I warn that one cannot name a nation that gave the military the power to make civilian arrests and hold citizens in military detention, that did not almost at once turn that power almost against members of that nation's own political ruling class. This makes sense - the obverse sense of a democracy, in which power protects you; political power endangers you in a militarized police state: the more powerful a political leader is, the more can be gained in a militarized police state by pressuring, threatening or even arresting him or her.

Mussolini, who created the modern template for fascism, was a duly elected official when he started to direct paramilitary forces against Italian citizens: yes, he sent the Blackshirts to beat up journalists, editors, and union leaders; but where did these militarized groups appear most dramatically and terrifyingly, snapping at last the fragile hold of Italian democracy? In the halls of the Italian Parliament. Whom did they physically attack and intimidate? Mussolini's former colleagues in Parliament - as they sat, just as our Congress is doing, peacefully deliberating and debating the laws. Whom did Hitler's Brownshirts arrest in the first wave of mass arrests in 1933? Yes, journalists, union leaders and editors; but they also targeted local and regional political leaders and dragged them off to secret prisons and to torture that the rest of society had turned a blind eye to when it had been directed at the 'other.' Who was most at risk from assassination or arrest and torture, after show trials, in Stalin's Russia? Yes, journalists, editors and dissidents: but also physically endangered, and often arrested by militarized police and tortured or worse, were senior members of the Politburo who had fallen out of favor.

Is this intimidation and arrest by the military a vestige of the past? Hardly. We forget in America that all over the world there are militarized societies in which shells of democracy are propped up - in which Parliament meets regularly and elections are held, but the generals are really in charge, just as the Egyptian military is proposing with upcoming elections and the Constitution itself. That is exactly what will take place if Congress gives the power of arrest and detention to the military: and in those societies if a given political leader does not please the generals, he or she is in physical danger or subjected to military arrest. Whom did John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, say he was directed to intimidate and threaten when he worked as a 'jackal', putting pressure on the leadership in authoritarian countries? Latin American parliamentarians who were in the position to decide the laws that affected the well-being of his corporate clients. Who is under house arrest by the military in Myanmar? The political leader of the opposition to the military junta. Malalai Joya is an Afghani parliamentarian who has run afoul of the military and has to sleep in a different venue every night - for her own safety. An on, and on, in police states - that is, countries with military detention of civilians - that America is about to join.

US Congresspeople and Senators may think that their power protects them from the treacherous wording of Amendments 1031 and 1032: but their arrogance is leading them to a blindness that is suicidal. The moment they sign this NDAA into law, history shows that they themselves and their staff are the most physically endangered by it. They will immediately become, not the masters of the great might of the United States military, but its subjects and even, if history is any guide - and every single outcome of ramping up police state powers, unfortunately, that I have warned for years that history points to, has come to pass - sadly but inevitably, its very first targets.

 

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

 
+138 # Kayjay 2012-01-02 13:50
Hmmm, those arrogant congressional members were merely jerking to the string manipulation of their neo-con puppeteers re. this bill. But now that the idiots have let the genie of the the military's bottle, we're all in serious trouble. The only tiny consolation will be to see Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, John McCain et all, clad in stripes working on a chain gang.
 
 
+92 # wantrealdemocracy 2012-01-02 16:18
Congress has no fear that they will be the ones to be arrested by the military and held indefinitely. This awful idea was passed fast track with no discussion in committees to shut down the Occupy Movement. There are NO elected officials in danger of being arrested because they are in the top 1%. This law only applies to the 99%. No one in Congress is opposed to any of the awful legislation in favor of endless wars, tax cuts for the rich, bundles of money given to the banks with no strings attached. No one in Congress is upset that we are cutting all our domestic programs and will not even allow Medicare for All to come up for a vote.

People in Congress have nothing to fear, but if you are considering attending a demonstration against any policy of 'our' government, you better be prepared for your arrest and possible trip off to the old Japanese concentration camps in the desert---or hey!! Maybe off to Romania for 'enhanced interrogation'. Now, don't that sound like fun!
 
 
+54 # Texan 4 Peace 2012-01-02 20:58
It's certainly NOT true that "no one is Congress is opposed to any of the awful legislation" you mention. Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Tammy Baldwin, Russ Feingold, Alan Grayson, and Carol Mosely-Braun (these last no longer in Congress unfortunately) fought the good fight on the side of 99% for years.
 
 
-75 # disgusted American 2012-01-02 22:00
Sorry but Kucinich, Sanders, Feingold and Grayson all voted in favor of Obamacare which is despotism disguised as health care reform.

And each of them, as well as all other Dems not in your list, knew how the law works and, thus, knew it had nothing to do with access to affordable health care with uniform benefits for all, and that it would adversely affect and exploit more people than it would help (or you'd like to think they knew what they were supporting).

The only Dem who would not vote in favor of the Obamacare horror was Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY), so Pelosi got rid of him with a sex scandal that was most probably trumped up when one considers the timing.

btw, Kucinich said he was a no-vote re Obamacare but after a ride in Air Force One, he changed to a yes-vote.

Good thing he wasn't the last yes-vote to stop the bombing in Hiroshima.
 
 
+11 # PGreen 2012-01-03 13:58
I see no moral argument for the National Defense Appropriations Act because it is no improvement and addresses no deficiency. It is a flat out attack on liberty.
However, supporting "Obamcare" is much the same as supporting Obama himself over, say, Gingrich or Bachman or Perry or Romney. There are better candidates than any of these oligarchs, 3rd partiers who have no chance of winning. In the Gore/Bush election, Nader was better, though he wasn't a realistic choice, and many progressives are angry at him, considering him a spoiler. (Personally, I don't fault Nader's motives.) Similarly, there are better healthcare plans out there, and I trust Kucinich and Sanders will push for them-- as exemplified by the Vermont application for a (Obamacare permissible) federal exception to implement a statewide single-payer system. The alternative to Obamacare is the same, rapidly deteriorating system that preceded it, which we are transitioning away from. The president probably told Kucinich on Air Force One: this is your only choice. Take it or leave it. Is Obamacare better that this "nothing alternative," keeping in mind the old system was/is falling apart?-- I'm honestly not sure. If Kucinich had killed Obamacare, would progressives consider him another "Nader?" Would you? Would Kucinich then be blamed for the horror that the health system was/is becoming?
Me, I'm watching Vermont. Go Sanders!
 
 
+2 # dkonstruction 2012-01-06 09:56
while i share your disgust to suggest that Kucinich would have supported the bombing of Hiroshima is more than a bit of a stretch. You should listen to Kucinich's full press conference (not just the mainstream media's soundbites of it) where he explained his reason for ultimately supporting the bill. One may not agree but it was a principled position...Kuci nich said that when obama was elected he believed that he had the opportunity to be a transformationa l president (again, we can disagree) which he still believed was possible (again, we can disagree) but that if the health care bill was defeated that this would end any chance of this coming to be. I didn't agree with Dennis' analysis on this one but it was a principled and well thought out position. To simply lump Kucinich (and Sanders for that matter...Feingo ld and Grayson are more of a mixed bag i think)in with the rest that jumped to support this bill no matter what is unfair at best and at worst a total distortion of why Kucinich ultimately voted for the bill
 
 
+44 # disgusted American 2012-01-02 21:49
Yes, this POS is in honor of the Occupy movement, but Naomi has a point and history does show her point to be true.

Any member of the ruling class - state or federal - who speaks out and/or refuses to march in lockstep with leadership will also be subject to this law. Read John Perkins' book she refers to: Confessions of an Economic Hitman, and you will find out that some of the first to be taken or murdered by the jackals are politicians who aren't towing the American line. That could be any politician, despot leader put in by America and dissidents of any stripe. Not so long ago, the latter were sent to the work camps in Siberian based on trumped up charges. Maybe they still are.

We now live under a reincarnation of the Third Reich. Same crapola, different time.
 
 
+27 # Activista 2012-01-02 18:41
"Democratic Senator Carl LEVIN of Michigan, one of the bill’s primary sponsors who drafted the original version in secret along with Republican Senator John McCain, states The Obama Administration specifically requested Section 1031 of the bill be expanded to include the indefinite detention of Americans, threatening to veto the bill if it failed to encompass citizens and non-citizens alike?" - quote from the Internet.
Correlate these pro war/pro NDAA democrats with AIPAC contributions - Senator Carl Levin leads.
 
 
+40 # maddave 2012-01-02 19:19
[quote name="Kayjay" But now that the idiots have let the genie of the the military's bottle, we're all in serious trouble. g.

This is just the latest in a series genii set loose, Kayjay: Patriot Acts I & II, Homeland Security, wiretapping, warrentless searches, Citizens United and only God knows what else that we DON't know about. The word "Democratic" has been banished from our Democrtaic Republic, and the final genie - martial law, the historical coup de grace of representative government - is grinning widely while awaiting his time in the sun.

Once empowered, Generals - as a class - do not relinquish their power & wealth voluntarily!
 
 
+15 # disgusted American 2012-01-02 21:36
kayjay,

jerking to the manipulation of their neo-con puppeteers?

what planet do you live on?

this was wholehearedly supported by Democrats as well a Repukes as a must-have law and it is exactly what Obama wanted so he could have not only the Patriot Act (which Dems also voted to extend) and not only his executive order that he could assassinate whoever the hell he pleases for no known reason but now has this actual statute to rely on as well.

So let's add to your list with Cantor, Ryan, McCain all of Congress on both sides of the aisle except for about very small number of Rs and Ds who voted against this, and let's put Obama at the top of the list.

Wake up!!!
 
 
-21 # John Locke 2012-01-02 21:49
Kayjay: I hate to bust your bubble, but the military is still under civil rule and Obama mandates who the terrorists are and how they shall be held so the likelihood of the military turning on congress is just wishful fancy, I wish but its not realistic
 
 
+11 # Michael Lee Bugg 2012-01-03 18:16
The military is under Obama's control as long as most of them are willing to be under his "control". So far Obama has looked like he has been willing to do whatever they want. He prolonged Iraq partly out of fear by most Democrats of looking weak on national security and partly to keep them busy so that they would not have time for a coup! Plus Obama didn't want to bring them home and downsize the military to add them to the unemployed and unhappy. The real problem is ignorance or mistaken beliefs by so many Americans who allow or even support such regressive actions and forfeiture of liberty and real justice to protect themselves from the bogey man!
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-01-03 22:04
You actually wish that even the guise of democracy would be replaced by outright despotism?
 
 
+3 # John Locke 2012-01-04 22:36
Billy Bob tell me what type of government do you think we live under at the moment?
 
 
+15 # ruralhorseman 2012-01-03 13:16
Quoting Kayjay:
Hmmm, those arrogant congressional members were merely jerking to the string manipulation of their neo-con puppeteers re. this bill. But now that the idiots have let the genie of the the military's bottle, we're all in serious trouble. The only tiny consolation will be to see Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, John McCain et all, clad in stripes working on a chain gang.

There will be no consolation as we sit in detention: Cantor, Ryan, McCain, et.al., will be but a distant memory. It will be our children, our grandchildren and us that will be foremost in our minds and how we were stupid enough to allow this to happen. Divorce your political party and start anew. Re-register with the Justice Party and vote for Ross " Rocky" Anderson for President in 2012. We have no time to wait, to form another impotent 3rd party. The Justice Party is viable and up and running. This is a way out and a way to reverse the slide into fascism.
 
 
+1 # RLF 2012-01-05 07:38
The puppeteers are the rich who are afraid, and rightly so, that OWS is coming after them...they are thinking civil war here. The military is being used as protection of the 1%...perhaps it always has...they are just too dumb to know it.
 
 
+78 # papabob 2012-01-02 14:31
For future use, please publish the list of those in the Congress who voted for the National Defense Appropriations Act.
 
 
+53 # Huck Mucus 2012-01-02 14:57
Correction:
Senate (I don't have the House; probably easier to look up your own state):
NAYs ---13
Cardin (D-MD)
Coburn (R-OK)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Durbin (D-IL)
Franken (D-MN)
Harkin (D-IA)
Lee (R-UT)
Merkley (D-OR)
Paul (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Sanders (I-VT)
Wyden (D-OR)
EDIT:
Not Voting - 1
Moran (R-KS)
 
 
+30 # LML 2012-01-02 17:42
At least I cn be prou of both of my state senators for voting against it....
...and I will rewatd each of them with my widow's mite.
Wish I was a millionaire so I could actually give them a reward commensurate with their moral courage!!!
 
 
+13 # Stephanie Remington 2012-01-02 18:58
This is the list of those voting AGAINST it, not for it.
 
 
+12 # Huck Mucus 2012-01-02 19:26
Correct. I put up a redacted list of 7 people at first, noting their opposition, then corrected it with the additional people and forgot to include the opposition. But with a 100 person senate, it's clear these 13 folks were opposed or it never would have passed.

Anyway, my bust.
 
 
+2 # RLF 2012-01-05 07:46
It is revealing and disgusting that the Dems and Reps. are equally represented here!
 
 
+12 # Stephanie Remington 2012-01-02 18:58
Here's the link to look it up for the House.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2011-375
 
 
+25 # Huck Mucus 2012-01-02 14:38
You know, there is a little Karma to this, if true. But still scary. We have General McChrystal across the street. Half the military, including some of the best former Tier One Operators, are in the private military contractor business where the money is at; with corporations. No one knows where loyalties lie, regardless of oaths taken and honor sworn. If the cops can't handle it, the military can, and if they can't handle it, well then, we have some off-the-grid mercs. The right brought it on themselves with Bush, the left stood idly by and supported disarming themselves with gun control. As William Muny said (Unforgiven) "We all got it comin' kid."
 
 
+5 # MashingTheGas 2012-01-02 19:18
Gun control?......

Link?
 
 
-5 # Huck Mucus 2012-01-02 22:22
No link. No Blue Book citations. No need. Oh, what the heck. A simple Google search came up with a site with some of the many gun control laws, state and federal. Didn't check on local. http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
 
 
0 # MashingTheGas 2012-01-03 08:04
Yep. Just what I thought. Nothing.
 
 
-2 # Huck Mucus 2012-01-03 09:52
What do you mean, nothing? There are a great many examples of gun control legislation in that link, both state and federal. Don't call for a link, receive it, and then try to save some argumentative face with post like this. You lose credibility with all who can read. Go read the link and educate yourself.
 
 
+11 # maddave 2012-01-02 19:23
Quoting Huck Mucus:
No one knows where loyalties lie (Unforgiven) "We all got it comin' kid."


Loyalties now-a-days lie with money. pelf and power, Huck!

Make no mistakes about it: ALL war (and political actions) are economic.
 
 
+5 # Byronator 2012-01-02 22:52
Gun control my butt -- when the coup d'etat occurs openly, I'm sure Dog the Bounty Hunter would be a serious force to be reckoned with against the most advanced military technology in the history of the world.
 
 
-4 # Huck Mucus 2012-01-03 09:54
Dog won't, but with over two million active gun owners and dissenting family members in the armed forces and law enforcement, it'll work.
 
 
+7 # Bill Owen 2012-01-03 16:32
Tell that to the A-10's. Tell that to a Drone at 10,000 feet. And yes, the military will fire on it's "own" people when the time comes. Count on it.

357 vs Abrams = FAIL
 
 
0 # Huck Mucus 2012-01-03 21:53
I know some of the men who operate those weapons systems. I know some of their commanders. Having served myself, I know the mentality of many who would NOT fire on us. So I won't count on it. But I will prepare for it just in case. There are those few to whom you refer and I also know where their wives, sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers live. You know why? Because they is us. Not like it would be with a draft, but good enough. Besides, I'd rather go up against an A-10 with a pea shooter than get on the train for Auschwitz like a lot of my fellow liberals that I know.
 
 
-1 # RLF 2012-01-05 07:49
That fat bastard would be marching with the Christian warriors!
 
 
+44 # Activista 2012-01-02 14:54
Ron Paul Calls National Defense Authorization Act "Slip Into Tyranny"
Naomi Wolf: "in police states - that is, countries with military detention of civilians - that America JOINED"
" Israel killed the leader of an al Qaeda-INSPIRED faction in an air strike on the Gaza Strip ..."
All what is needed is to be al Qaeda-INSPIRED .. Muslim? Criticize war in Afghanistan -- is this NOT al Qaeda-INSPIRED action? YES - "low-level dissenting figures, activists, or troublesome protesters might be subjected to military arrest" like in Nazi Germany .. "they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak ... Then they came for the trade unionists, ... The Nazi party did not come for the Jews until last. .."
 
 
+4 # dorianb@fuse.net 2012-01-02 16:46
Activista: would like to hear the entire quote.....
 
 
+21 # bubbiesue 2012-01-02 21:15
Quoting dorianb@fuse.net:
Activista: would like to hear the entire quote.....


This quote is credited to Pastor Martin Neimoller who lived 1892-1984 . He said (see Wikipedia) that he may or may not have said it exactly like this, but it's the gist that counts. Besides, it's translated from the German.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
 
 
+2 # dorianb@fuse.net 2012-01-03 04:19
Thank you bubbie sue. Appropro
 
 
+3 # disgusted American 2012-01-02 22:11
rest of the quote is: then they came for me.
 
 
+49 # DurangoKid 2012-01-02 16:20
Pretty soon it won't be al Qaeda inspired anything. It will be people protesting about not having gas for their cars, heating oil for the houses, butter selling for $15/lb. This is the government's plan for the comming energy crunch. They don't need to hold everyone, just a few rabble rousers and others caught with picket signs or cameras. The capitalists decided long ago that there was no profit to be made trying to solve the energy problem. Otherwise, since the 70's when oil production peaked in the US, corporations would have found a marketable solution. And since it takes decades to phase out one enery system and bring up another, we would have seen the transition coming for at least the last two decades. Where is it? It doesn't exist. What is coming is not different energy, but less energy. Along with that will come unrest as Petroleum Man realizes all the niceties of the Petroleum Age begin fade away. Yes, they've given away the republic. What use is a republic when everyone save the 1/10 of 1% is reduced to penury? The great masses of the US will be reduced from citizens to survivors. No one worries about governance in a hand to mouth existance. I give it about two to three years before the realization sets in that industrial culture has finally reached its energy and material limits.
 
 
+75 # RMDC 2012-01-02 16:25
This is a sad day for America. The right of Habeas Corpus is the bedrock of human rights. It simply means no government can arrest or hold anyone without due process, that is a process in which the accused has rights and protections. Habeas Corpus was one of the demands in the Magna Carta. All legitimate governments have endorsed it since then. Obama has moved the US over into the category of dictatorship. And this was done by a former professor of Constitutional Law! Obama simply does not have the courage to stand up to the Pentagon and CIA. The Pentagon pretended it did not want it, but in fact it does want it. But this new law is really the CIA's project. It runs secret detention and torture camps all over the world. It has been researching techniques of torture and behavior modification since the 50s. Now it can continue that research on American citizens. "Disappearances " was a hallmark strategy of the CIA sponsored coup d'etats in Latin America in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Even to this day, there are demonstrators in Argentian, Guatemala, and other places demanding to know what happened to their loved ones who just disappeared one day. But we know what happened to most of them. They were tortured and when the torturers had gained enough sadistic pleasure, the victims were loaded on to helicopters, flown out over the ocean, and kicked out the door. That's how the CIA works. Get ready Americans. You are next.
 
 
+14 # racetoinfinity 2012-01-02 21:48
Habeas Corpus actually was formally introduced after the Magna Carta according to Wikipedia, but no matter. Now the USA is abrogating it. I never thought it would get this fascist in this country. Appalling and serious, very!!
 
 
+19 # Byronator 2012-01-02 22:58
G.W. Bush and Cheney suspended Habeas Corpus. Those who supported Obama were hoping restoration of Habeas Corpurs would be one of his first actions as President. Now he's buried it.
 
 
+5 # Barbara K 2012-01-02 16:42
Has anyone here read this Bill? I received a letter from my Sen. Levin assuring that Americans are specifically omitted in this Bill, unless of course, the join a terrorist group. I'd put it on here, but there isn't room for it. Look up the Bill and see for sure what it says. I want to see the Bill itself.

NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN !!

our future is at stake
 
 
+32 # Huck Mucus 2012-01-02 17:27
Barbara K: Levin is blowing smoke up your ass. He would argue Americans are specifically omitted by the specific application of the Act to AQ or "an associated force." However, this reasoning fails for the reasons set forth in my post below, not to mention the fact that the Bill of Rights applies to Americans on American soils EVEN IF they are terrorists or AQ (i.e. Timothy McVeigh). Further, if you buy heroin which came from opium which was grown in the Stan by Taliban . . . etc. So now the war on drugs is included, and I can stretch this on and on and on. Besides, once all the furor dies down, what goes on behind the scenes 20 years from now when the next Cheney is in charge? Levin is an enemy domestic and he should be rolled up under this law, as Naomi suggests.
 
 
+13 # Billsy 2012-01-02 18:51
Sen. Levin is a democrat. Not sure i'd want to reelect him.
 
 
+12 # Stephanie Remington 2012-01-02 19:16
There is a video of Senator Levin explaining to Senator Kirk of Illinois, who objected to the language in the bill that included Americans as targets, that he had removed language that provided an exception for Americans and lawful residents from the original bill because the White House had objected to this allowance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6ARkiJM2bA

In light of the massive number of Democrats who voted for this bill in the House, and the fact that more Republicans than Democrats voted against it in the Senate, and the fact that the Democratic President of the United States requested that the bill include language to include Americans in it, your constant admonition to "never vote Republican" is incomprehensible.

Do you honestly think it's better to vote for Democrats even though they do awful things – the same things as Republicans – just because they're Democrats?
 
 
+10 # maddave 2012-01-02 19:33
Quoting Barbara K:
. Levin assuring that Americans are specifically omitted in this Bill, unless of course, they join a terrorist group.


Levin is as wrong as the act itself! Going be back to Patriot II, you do not have to be guilty of ANYTHING to be hauled away with no phone call and no lawyer. The fact that you are accused of "terrorism" (whatever that means) is sufficient reason to lock you up indefinitely. Where there is no habeas corpus, there needs to be no trial.

Of the prisoners still held in GITMO, "many" - an inordinately high percentage - are there because of accusations alone - some since their mid-teens and with no end in sight.
 
 
+12 # disgusted American 2012-01-02 22:19
barbara,

you can read about the vauge language in ths bill in reports by Jonathan Turley and also Glenn Greenwald at salon.com. For Turley, google his name with the name of the law or detention of Americans.

The language is structured so that anything goes, and since you won't have a right to due process, anything does go.

Educate yourself instead of believing Carl Levin or any of the others. Their job is to hide the truth from you by supplying disingenuous responses and much obsfucation.

Democrats voted for this bill. Don't vote for them either, and certainly not for Herr Obama.

Take a look at Jill Stein or Rocky Anderson for prez. If you vote for a D or an R, you are digging all of our graves as well as yours.
 
 
+5 # Erdajean 2012-01-03 21:14
Oh,come off it! Yes our future IS at stake and who pulled the rug from under all of us who oppose corporate slave-holders, international bullying, eternal wars, invasion by drones, torture and murder? Hey -- did we elect a Republican last time around? Seems like we put our faith, our money and our hearts into electing a Democrat!
I sure did! And he has nailed the lid shut on America's coffin.
Let's talk a little sense here. We need to find a REAL candidate we can believe in -- NOT one we know is an idiot (GOP) or what we have now -- a liar and a traitor to this country. We need to agree on that candidate and work like life and liberty depend on it -- which they do.
No MORE "lesser of the evils!" No more EVIL! Enough is way too much!
 
 
+1 # RLF 2012-01-05 07:54
Babs...You never fail to have an excuse for Obama's actions. You working for him?
 
 
+13 # Huck Mucus 2012-01-02 16:43
I, Rumsfeld, acting in coordination with Non-Article III Court executive branch DOD entities, using my standards, and with no Article III Court or Congressional oversight or review, shall make the determination of what constitutes being “part of” and what constitutes “an associated force” and what constitutes “acts” and what constitutes “direction” and what constitutes “al-Qaeda” and what constitutes “participated” and what constitutes “in the course of” and what constitutes “planning” and what constitutes “carrying out” and what constitutes an “attack” and what constitutes “coalition partners.”
Combined with my powers under the Patriot Act, I can go out and search for evidence against anyone which might support my definitions. As one working for President Bush or President Obama or some similar enemy-domestic in the future, I could make this work against anyone who opposed the war(s) or the President or his policies or me, in a time of war (or not), from marijuana smokers to gun owners (not that they are mutually exclusive).
It matters naught, under the Act, whether my interpretation is clearly beyond the pale and stretches credulity to the point of ridiculousness: I see no opportunity for my interpretation to be checked by the *Constitution.* It can ONLY be checked by what *I* have implied to be the good will and good judgment of me, who would never want to do you any harm. I serve 20 years from now when all this is forgotten.
 
 
+36 # peterjkraus 2012-01-02 16:49
Check out the enabling acts signed by various governments: among them Hitler´s (Ermächtigungsg esetz) and Obama´s (Enabling Act of 2011 National Defense Authorization Act H.R. 1540 ). How long until we´re in the crosshairs?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_act
 
 
+26 # theshift33 2012-01-02 16:50
Never fear. They will probably pass a bill in the middle of the night when we are sleeping giving themselves immunity.

Will that work for them? Or is is too late once this Act is passed.
 
 
+17 # Kasandra 2012-01-02 16:51
And who is going to "arrest Congress?" Is our "right to free speech," next? This would be real imprisonment.
 
 
+21 # JamesGustin 2012-01-02 16:58
Thanks Naomi. So now we're really f'd. What do we do now. Should I ask my congressman to unsign? Is there any up side?
 
 
-21 # MashingTheGas 2012-01-02 17:01
While I agree the passage of this bill is a low-water mark for our democracy, I'm not about to start stocking up on ammo, canned goods and visqueen.

Rather than get ourselves into a collective "here comes Mussolini" lather, is it not reasonable to assume that at least one of any number of organizations like the ACLU will immediately challenge this?

Come on, people...... stop looking for the black helicopters over your shoulder.
 
 
+22 # Huck Mucus 2012-01-02 17:31
You need a "case or controversy" for the ACLU to challenge this. They can't challenge it on general principles. They need a client. If their would-be client has been successfully rolled up under Act then they can't very well know who their client is, much less fight for him/her.
 
 
-4 # MashingTheGas 2012-01-02 19:12
You are dead wrong. How many challenges to "ObamaCare" have been swatted down. Since when could a law not be challenged on the basis of being unconstitutiona l? You don't really suggest that somebody has to be "harmed" in order to have standing, do you?
 
 
+4 # Huck Mucus 2012-01-02 23:42
No, MashingTheGas, YOU are dead wrong. Challenges to ObamaCare are brought by State sovereigns (AGs, usually) with a financial and administrative interest and a case or controversy. "Swatted down" would make my case and undermine yours, if brought by private citizens. You can't just sue, and be heard, because you feel like it. The courts will toss you out on your ear. The ACLU does not represent America so who would be their client? "Just because"? Pump the brakes.
 
 
+4 # racetoinfinity 2012-01-02 22:06
Now THAT'S scary (not that it wasn't before I read your info.)!!
 
 
+2 # Sandy G 2012-01-02 20:41
They might try, but...
 
 
+4 # racetoinfinity 2012-01-02 21:56
You're right in that this is going to be challenged by the ACLU and other civil liberties groups, and I hope to Spirit (God) that even the terrible 5/4 SCOTUS realizes how unconstitutiona l this is. I don't expect Thomas to be on board or Scalia.
 
 
+16 # racetoinfinity 2012-01-02 22:05
The Orwellian endless "war on terror" is largely an excuse to introduce fascism here and it's been effective in quelling any coverage of these appalling developments by the mainstream media; they don't dare appear "pro-'terrorist '", etc.
 
 
+8 # disgusted American 2012-01-02 22:31
The ACLU has already done so or is in the process, I believe. The ACLU is irrelevant at this point.

I think groups have also filed against SOPA and PIPA and have been ignored.

I read today or yesterday that Obama, the CIA and the DOJ, just to name a few, also ignore the Freedom of Info Act if responding with the info requested will show their lies, misdeeds and illegal actions. Notice I don't include unconstitutiona l b/c they don't give a damn about that since a long time. Same re the Bill of Rights.

Eventually, the ruling class will eat each other alive once they have subjected we the people to the forthcoming austerity measures a/k/a slow euthanasia.

Powerful people always turn on each other.
 
 
+2 # MashingTheGas 2012-01-03 08:06
Uhhhhhh..... SOPA and PIPA aren't law yet...... Just sayin' there's a difference.
 
 
+32 # Above God 2012-01-02 17:05
Naomi strikes again. I agree 100% with her in that a president as Commander in Chief could order the detention of all Congressional members w/o charges or trial indefinately and essentially declare themselves dictator for life. McCain and Levin have sealed the fate of a future Congress to the FEMA gulog. Congratulations , tratiors.
 
 
+23 # PeterAttwood 2012-01-02 17:05
If you look at who voted against, you'll find a good many Republicans. This is not a matter of Republicans or Democrats. The Obama supporters know who their candidate is for, after three years: they've calculated that for a Dem label, it's worth having a poilce state in service to the 1% with endless war. Those opposed to these things may be called Democrats, Republicans, conservatives or progressives. I don't care about any of those things. I care that they're opposed, and they're right. And those that are OK with the police state, who support all the things Bush did now that Obama does them, they're dead wrong. Let's remember that so-called progressives were big supporters of Woodrow Wilson, one of the most tyrannical figures ever to occupy the White House, as well as one of the most vicious white supremacists.
 
 
+16 # Huck Mucus 2012-01-02 17:37
You are correct. Some of the most zealous opposition I have seen is coming from the right. Funny thing is, they think the left is out to roll them up, while we think they are out to roll us up. Funnier still, most of them don't read stuff from the left so they think they are alone in this fight. Some folks on the left don't read what the right is up to and, likewise, think the right is behind the NDAA. Perhaps "we the people" have finally found some common ground.
(Secretly, my paranoia still has me thinking the SOCOM types are only pretending they would never carry out orders under this Act just to make me feel less paranoid about it. LOL!)
 
 
+9 # dorianb@fuse.net 2012-01-02 18:14
peter Atwood: Well said!
 
 
-7 # WaldenPond 2012-01-02 17:31
What happened to "land of the free, home of the brave"? What happened to "liberty and justice for all"? How has it happened that America has gone so low, so contrary to our values and Constitution, so fast? The only contending voice to oppose this direction is Ron Paul. Whether right or left in your political beliefs, consider voting this year for Constitutional government, rule-of-law, and historical common sense.
 
 
+9 # dorianb@fuse.net 2012-01-02 20:33
WaldenPond: do you really want a homophobic, anti-semetic, bigot to lead us away from a fascist government? Paul would be leading us in the wrong direction, and he cares nothing for the impoverished or most vulnerable, needy citizens. He states the they should fend for them-selves. Is this what you want? Is it "historical common sense" to go backward in time to a time before civil rights and the New Deal?
 
 
+14 # racetoinfinity 2012-01-02 22:10
No, he's not the only one. There are Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, and other progressives who understand "the public good" as a reality and a value, unlike Paul. Still, we need everyone left, center and right to unite in opposition.
 
 
+4 # dorianb@fuse.net 2012-01-03 14:17
racetoinfinity: This is so Orwellian. You speak powerful words when you say...
"we need everyone left, center, right to unite in opposition" because in "1984" those in command used inhumane methods of torture and intimidation to turn good friends and loved ones, and those who understood and valued "the public good" against one another. There will always be a few highly evolved politicians like Bernie Saunders, Dennis Kucinich, et al but the task falls on the people to supercede trivial differences and unite as a common community for the good of all human beings.
 
 
+22 # uglysexy 2012-01-02 17:32
Actually I think it's the Artists, Intellectuals and Journalists who go first...during a Purge. We can only assume the Military is pressing for the ability to have a Coup.
 
 
+6 # dorianb@fuse.net 2012-01-03 14:27
uglysexy: The first group of Jews the Nazi's went after under the orders of Hitler were the "Intellectuals" , which included Scientists, MD's, Judiciary, Professors, lawyers and Journalists (and possibly Artists) because they pose the greatest threat during a Purge.
 
 
+6 # uglysexy 2012-01-02 17:34
As long as we have the Creepo Right Wing Crypto Fascist Activist Majority on the Supreme Court....We may lose any non legislative appeals about this language. At the same time...anyone who seriously intends not to vote for Obama, when the repubelickens may win the senate and hold the house, has lost the Plot.
 
 
+20 # jsucke3 2012-01-02 17:35
When can Congress vote to repeal this part of the NDAA? Isn't it time we started a campaign to do this?
 
 
+4 # disgusted American 2012-01-02 22:35
Get a recall of Dems or Repukes in your state who voted in favor of this law. I read yesterday that MT is going to recall all Dems who voted for this.
 
 
+1 # Erdajean 2012-01-03 21:33
The WOEFUL thing is that in some states there is NO recall mechanism in place. Where I live if a legislator or congressperson commits a felony and goes to prison, his/her vote still counts. When I inquired about this to our state elections official, he said, "Wait and vote him out!" Brilliant, eh?
 
 
+3 # BeaDeeBunker 2012-01-02 17:49
Dear Ms. Wolf,
I guess now Congress has something to look forward to. They will wake up one morning to learn first hand what a SHOCK DOCTRINE is all about!

Churchill said it best when he described 'democracy' as the worst form of government, except for all the rest.

But on a positive note; my team choice won last Sunday, and will go on to win the Super Bowl...isn't that just special!
 
 
+21 # brianf 2012-01-02 17:52
It would serve them right if members of Congress were all arrested. But no need to worry about that, because they already do whatever the military and its industrial complex wants.

Now if we managed to get some good people in there, then I'd be worried....
 
 
+38 # Steve5551 2012-01-02 18:02
In that Carl Levin and John War Crimminal McCain and Lindsey Graham pushed this Constitutional threat, they along with Obama along with all the other members of the senate who signed it should be arrested immediately. I say this because they pledged to "protect the Constitution against all threats both foreign and domestic".
 
 
+9 # oakes721 2012-01-02 18:20
Now recognized to be a symbol of an earlier revolution, citizens will be asked to turn in their American flags ~ as it is now suspected to represent anarchist ties to rebel insurgents who defied King George's rule in the past and do not now appear to be supportive the new military regime of the U.S.
 
 
+5 # disgusted American 2012-01-02 22:39
Why wait to be asked? Turn it it on your own right away or use it to mop the kitchen floor.

Good point you made about the flag. Turning in flags based on this could be an Occupy action just like closing Bank of America accounts.

A turn-in-your flag day based on the fact you gave above.
 
 
-4 # Rabbit 2012-01-03 06:39
They have already started removing the American flag as a unifying symbol. They say it makes illegal alien mexicans angry!
Hows that for conditioning?
 
 
+25 # ozken 2012-01-02 18:32
I think Naomi is right that history inevitably repeats itself.

A clear recent example of this being the deregulation of the finance system and repeal of the Glass - Steagal Act in the U.S.A. that has returned America (and the western world) to the unfettered aspects of uncontrolled greedy capitalism and resulted in the west's current economic problems. Just like BEFORE the Great Depression.

I think politicians should be like doctors - FIRST DO NO HARM should be their creed - signed in blood - their blood!

I hope that come the revolution the politicians that voted for this National Defense Authorization Act 2011 will be the first up against the wall, that is if the military hasn't renditioned them all by then.

"It's the same the whole world over,
It's the poor wot gets the blame;
It's the rich wot gets the pleasure,
Ain't it all a blooming shame."

"The business of America is business." Now should read "The business of America is business, controlled for and by the entitled 1% club and profits greased by endless wars while management of the 99% Darwinian challenged populace is continued by means of the 1% controlled media and paid for politicians." Amen.
 
 
-4 # LessSaid 2012-01-02 18:33
I think the title and some of the contents of this article is a bit dramatic as relates to our congress people. There is nothing in this bill that would likely result in the arrest of any congress person. This is not to say that I am in agreement with sections 1031 and 1032. I think the people who are at risk is the average U.S. citizen.
 
 
+10 # Stephanie Remington 2012-01-02 22:24
It would probably depend on which congress person you were talking about. Most of them don't do anything to rock the boat when it comes to political power. But I could definitely see people like Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul becoming targets because they both speak against the status quo and in favor of policies that restrain and cut back the military.
 
 
-5 # LessSaid 2012-01-03 17:05
Quoting Stephanie Remington:
It would probably depend on which congress person you were talking about. Most of them don't do anything to rock the boat when it comes to political power. But I could definitely see people like Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul becoming targets because they both speak against the status quo and in favor of policies that restrain and cut back the military.


Read the law, there isn't anything in the bill that would put most or any congress person at risk. Regardless of what you guys beloved Naomi Wolf write's. I am sure if she said the sky is falling tomorrow you guys would start building houses underground.
 
 
+14 # James Marcus 2012-01-02 18:54
Feeling very Shakespearian:
A Den of Thieves has granted themselves the rights to:
Entrench Themselves
Steal anything, (everything)
'Disappear' anyone,
Tell No Truth, (well, whose Media is it, anyway?)
and , of course,
'Protect the World against Terrorists'....
Like it, or not
 
 
+10 # salvatore 2012-01-02 18:56
For those who asked who voted for or against ...

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2011-932
 
 
+4 # Sandy G 2012-01-02 20:30
Thanks salvatore!
 
 
+40 # walt 2012-01-02 18:59
The civilian control of the U.S. military has been sacrosanct in our history, but it has now been seriously compromised whereby a citizen could be held and tried by them.

Never should the military be used in any manner against the civilian population as this law allows!

The US Senate shamed itself with 93 signing this outrageous bill. Add to that spineless Obama's failing to veto it and we see what a sorry condition we are in!

Fascism is well-entrenched in America!

Let's vote out the 93 who did!
 
 
+17 # Sandy G 2012-01-02 20:26
It all started with the hysteria leading to the passage of the 'USA Patriot Act', establishment of the Departmaent of Homeland Security, and all that. The hysteria has not only abated, it has become worse
 
 
+12 # racetoinfinity 2012-01-02 22:12
ORCHESTRATED hysteria, believe me!
 
 
+1 # dorianb@fuse.net 2012-01-02 20:41
If only we had that kind of power WALT. Are you from TX?
 
 
+16 # Clayton Stouffer 2012-01-02 20:15
Not to put down people who are full of negativism regarding the future of our country including the continuance of life on this planet. I think they are correct about the 99% of the time.

H O W E V E R, I suggest it is time to take action for change and you can start by going to www.actionsourcds.org. This site is like a street sign that points you to action orgs that are on the front lines of reversing or ameliorating the treasonous Supreme Court Citizens United decision that gives corporations "personhood" and the ability to spend unlimited amounts of UNDISCLOSED money on political campaigns through PACS that support their candidates. Long shot that it is, winning this fight is the sine-qua-non for our democracy. If we lose this one, it is all over with. TIME TO TAKE ACTION!!!

Clay Stouffer
 
 
+7 # racetoinfinity 2012-01-02 22:16
Good comment - I am correcting your link - you made a typo - it's www.actionsources.org.
 
 
+5 # wleming 2012-01-02 20:17
ms. wolf seems to suggest that the congress, those idiotic excuses for political representatives , are not acting in their own interest. in fact: thats all they do. but we should not confuse people who are arrogant and serve the rich, with those who do not.
 
 
+17 # Sandy G 2012-01-02 20:22
People who doubt Naomi's premise in this piece should try to remember that one of Adolph Hitler's very first parliamentary moves in the newly formed Reichstag in 1933 was to arrest and incarcerate the politicians in opposition parties, invoke 'article 48 of the Weimar constitution giving him dictatorial power to do whatever he wanted (!), and the rest is history.
Naomi is dead right. And if America takes leave of its senses and elects a Republican this year, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
 
 
+11 # disgusted American 2012-01-02 22:48
Or elects a Democrat and you ain't seen nothin' yet either.

You seem to have already forgotten that more Repukes voted against this than Demorats - that a Demorat wrote it WITH a Repuke - and that Obama, who wanted this law and the language about detaining Americans here and everywhere in there is a Demorat.

What part of this don't you understand? It's the same as with all else they are doing to the 99 percent. Both parties dine lavishly at the same trough and neither gives a care about you.
 
 
+5 # Antonia Myss 2012-01-03 08:40
"And if America takes leave of its senses and elects a Republican this year, you ain't seen nothin' yet."

WHAT are you talking about? Obama IS a Republican posing as a Democrat.

WAKE UP. WAKE UP. WAKE UP.
 
 
+4 # Texan 4 Peace 2012-01-02 21:05
Wolf states that "Parliamentary leaders are the first to face pressure, threats, arrest and even violence when the military obtains the power... hold civilians in military facilities without due process. There is no exception to this rule." Neat argument, but unlikely. This is one area in which "American exceptionalism" might in fact hold. Member of Congress are mostly millionaires, and in the good old USA, millionaires don't get held without charges or representation. We're not much of a democracy, but we're not Myanmar either.
 
 
+1 # noitall 2012-01-02 22:55
Right, rich guys never get robbed. Power struggle...cong ress...military ...sold farm...do the math.
 
 
+3 # vicnada 2012-01-02 21:14
Here's a dramatic, if unexpected, natural world demonstration of how we, the 99%, must take back the world we love.

Near the end, you will hear a voice of experience say: "I've never seen this before."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM

After you watch, meditate. Consider how the victim is rescued half way by the determined greed of it's attackers? Can one "evil" be harnessed to neutralize another before being rendered powerless itself? Is this naked display so different from the unconscious drives that manifest socially in our political and economic battles? How long will we-the-people hold back our hooves of thunder in the face of those who arrogantly feed on our young?

Al Franken, my Senator, has sharp horns.
 
 
+8 # noitall 2012-01-02 21:27
All Americans should be feeling like Beevis & Butt Head. Its not as though there haven't been many people telling Americans, who would listen, what was being played. Howard Zinn, Noam, Naomi, Moore, Bernie, Carlin,...the comics have been telling us for years even. Beevis & ButtHead watched as their TV was carried away, Americans watch as their money, jobs, and even their Republic are carried away; but here's the good one...they STILL sit there and feel superior to the rabble getting their ribs kicked in at OWS, hoping that "things will turn soon". I hope there is some compassion from one of those gods out there to show mercy on a country that doesn't deserve it. That's what it'll take now.
 
 
+5 # DaveM 2012-01-02 23:44
It will be interesting indeed to see what life is like under the control of a junta.
 
 
+2 # noitall 2012-01-04 16:58
Just look around, the U.S. in our name, are experts at establishing this scenario in places "with American Interests". Buy the leadership and subjugate it's citizens. The leader's job is then, to keep them from sending in the jackals.
 
 
-1 # SueB 2012-01-03 04:16
The U.S. is in the beginning phases of what I am pretty sure will be the biggest positive changes in the past 150 years. Every pull back to fear, such as the NDAA, will cause a ripping out toward the future. One step back, ten steps forward. We are on the verge of great things. It won't happen without struggle and pain, but it will happen.
 
 
+3 # futhark 2012-01-03 05:19
The detention centers were built under the Cheney/Bush administration, but the first explicit proponent of "preventive indefinite detention" was Barack Hussein Obama, May 19, 2009. Google it.
 
 
+5 # BobHG 2012-01-03 05:27
So the citizens of America now live under legalised martial law? Is this what the much-trumpeted "freedom and democracy" stands for these days? Cheney must be dancing in the streets. Oh, and is this the change we were all supposed to believe in? America really needs a third political party to restore civil liberties, especially habeas corpus.
 
 
+5 # sharsand 2012-01-03 07:12
Obama could have chosen not to sign this. Saying he was not happy with certain provisions of this bill is meaningless; he effectively endorsed it by signing it. Most people are unaware that our government has built indefinite detention camps in secret locations in this country and in places like Eastern Europe. People are held indefinitely without trial. Will the Occupiers, and others, who voice disagreement or opposition to such horrendous decisions as the Citizens United case, which essentially gave ownership of our country to global corporations, will such dissenters disappear. There's no outcry by the media at the torture and murder of teachers and union leaders in places like Honduras who want to privatize education for the elite. Is it because that's what our government wants here? An elite country with sweatshops, internment camps, and wars for the rest of us and our children?
 
 
+5 # HarryP 2012-01-03 08:01
It's worse than that. Not only can members of Congress be targeted, but the president himself.

Rick Santorum just announced that among his priorities as president, he will address the acts of treason committed by Obama who has "sided with our enemies on almost every single" war.

Here we have the prospect of President Santorum arresting President Obama and shipping him off to Guantanamo without bothering to read him his rights, because he doesn't have any.

That's called being hoisted by your own petard. In future dictionaries, that Shakespearean phrase can be illustrated by showing a manacled Obama, in an orange jump suit (it has to be a color photograph) guarded by German shepherds.

Three years at Harvard Law down the drain.
 
 
+1 # dorianb@fuse.net 2012-01-03 16:23
TRick Santorium is running for POTUS because the US is going through a serious political and moral upheaval. Don't blame Santorium, he's a puppet. Obama is the puppeteer. Blame obama for not closing down Guantanamo and for signing a law that puts all of us at risk. We can be arrested and detained without due process. In regard to Santorium arresting Obama, in a fascist country those in command all turn on each other. The commander arresting will be arrested and it goes, on and on like that in "1984". You need to worry about the ordinary citizen being arrested without cause or due process and we need to worry about our children and grand-children living in a fascist country. grandchildren.

Obama took an oath to protect us and he should be impeached for betraying the American citizens and our inalienable rights we have taken for granted living in a democratic nation. Liberal, conservative, progressive, L or R have no importance in a fascist nation. Every-one is at peril. We must ban together as a communal group with one voice and demand that this law be struck down! This is more important than the presidential campaign which has served as a distraction and cover up for the bill being signed at this time and pushed through on the New year.
 
 
+6 # Idonthavealabel 2012-01-03 08:21
Thanks Naomi! I keep passing these kinds of things on in the hope that the people I love who refuse to remove the blinders will read it and something will "click" so they can realize what is/has happened to our country.

Democrat or Republican-does n't matter. You must look to the individual to see where they truly stand before you choose to support them. You need to see if they will actually support YOU.

This is one time in my life I hope I DON'T get to say "I told you so!".
 
 
+8 # Antonia Myss 2012-01-03 08:36
When anyone in the three branches of government is sworn into office, s/he takes the OATH OF OFFICE: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of ______________ of the United States, and WILL TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY PRESERVE, PROTECT, AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES." Isn't anyone, including the President, who fails to do so guilty of TREASON, or at a minimum impeachable?
 
 
+1 # dorianb@fuse.net 2012-01-03 16:43
Antonia MYSS: YOU ARE RIGHT! IF this law stands it won't make any difference who becomes POTUS because both parties will no longer be mandated to adhere and respect our constitutional rights. What happens in fascism is anyone/everyone is the enemy and paranoia reigns. What Obama did is beyond any excuse or rationale. He betrayed every American citizen by takeing away our constitutional rights. If that isn't treason, I don't know what is. Obama should be impeached.
 
 
+1 # USA2012??? 2012-01-03 09:43
All the talk about the completed well manned detention centers seems to make sense now dosen't it? Keep in mind these detention centers were under conversion and construction during Clinton's Administration as well.

Well, if history is any indication of what's to come Congress people should be shaking in their boots, because we should all know by now their conduct has been and is currently detrimental to the United States: Geithner and Cantor beware!
 
 
-7 # tclose 2012-01-03 09:47
I think the concern about this aspect of US law is well founded, however I think it should be viewed within the overall context of the 2012 NDAA, a huge defense bill that covers many, many defense authorizations wading through a factious Congress.
Pres. Obama himself in signing this document made it clear that he had the same objections as stated here, and would seek to have them nullified in the future - but that he needed to get this bill done given political realities. See: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540
 
 
+6 # shortonfaith 2012-01-03 10:03
What a waste of time, an article after the fact, after it's too late. As a people we need to get on things while we still have a chance to change them. We also need to support ideas in masses so great they can't throw everyone in jail. An article about Jesse James robbing the bank & moving to Bolivia is too late. Until we learn to move on things before they happen, we will continue to get robbed.

Send your political contributions to OWS
 
 
+2 # Valentine Wiggins 2012-01-03 13:02
How did your congress member vote? http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/268602/20111216/ndaa-did-congress-member-vote.htm

Here is the list of only 14 senators that voted against NDAA. http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nt77r/the_14_senators_who_voted_against_ndaa_all_the/
 
 
-2 # David311 2012-01-03 13:25
Are we living in a police state? Didn't Obama sign this bill while on this two-week-long Hawaiian vacation?

Let's make sure Obama emulates in length of stay at the White House Dhimmi, er, Jimmy Carter
 
 
+4 # Bill Owen 2012-01-03 16:05
No Obama did not sign it. A MACHINE signed it, it's called an "auto-pen".

http://bit.ly/z1Ydta
 
 
0 # glenda333 2012-01-03 14:01
so why all the government/medi a quoting? i.e. blame republicans for all things.. Isn't that a little old and wearing a little thin by now? Wake up! It's government that keeps morphing into larger more in control of all things government! Not silly little hate and bigotry games that only serve the above purpose I stated.
 
 
-3 # glenda333 2012-01-03 14:03
Actually, I think both parties mean well! Can't help it if they are pawns and not too bright to boot.. But there's waay too much hatred against conservatives and christians.. but I don't see it ending any time soon, they never do..
 
 
+2 # dorianb@fuse.net 2012-01-03 16:55
glenda333: both parties mean well? Are you kidding? You must not understand the bill Obama passes and noone forced him to sign it and as a constituional law professor he knew he was signing away our constituional rights!! Who does something like that Glenda333? Obama took an oath to protect our constitutional rights. This has nothing to do with hatred against conservatives and christians. This is about Obama who used his power as POTUS to betray the very people who voted him into office to protect their freedom and rights as citizens of the US. We're not talking about animosity between political parties
we're talking about our democracy becoming a fascist nation.
 
 
+3 # gdp1 2012-01-03 15:06
...so, the President could order drone attacks on Goldman Sachs? Hmmmmm....
 
 
0 # Bill Owen 2012-01-03 16:02
Sure the potentially signed their own arrest warrants. Just as by sitting by and watching Obama assassinate a US citizen they may have signed their own death warrants. Well, not "warrants", "memos".

They vote how they are told in any event, it's not like they have a real choice.
 
 
+1 # dorianb@fuse.net 2012-01-03 16:59
Bill Owen: Obama had a choice. Why he made it and what he was given in return we can only speculate on but he signed it of his own free will and as a law professor knew exactly what he signed.
Obama is not only the worst POTUS: He is the most dangerous.
 
 
+7 # James LeCuyer 2012-01-03 19:11
Obama has deluded us all. He gave up one of our dearest freedoms, the freedom to have a jury trial by our peers. That we can be picked up off the street by military personnel, and thrown in prison forever without trial for no stated reason except suspicion of terrorism is a horror. It strikes home at my soul. I refuse to give any credence to any military personnel, I will not willingly go anywhere with any military person for any reason, and am the absolute enemy of military rule. If I am forced to go, I go as an enemy of the police state that the so-called Homeland Battlefield Bill now authorizes. I've seen our privacy invaded in every possible way, and now our freedom. They can force me or kill me but they can't make me like them. To Hell with Obama and our Fascist Congress. Damn them all to Hell.
 
 
-1 # Anarchist 23 2012-01-04 16:49
This has been going on a long time and like the frog put into the pot of slowly heating water it has not been felt until too late and now We The People are cooked.

How long has it taken you ask? In my lifetime since the JFK assassination of 63 and the 'magic bullet' theory which morphed on 911 to the 'magic cave' villain and his enchanted jet grade kerosene which could melt the steel in tall buildings all at once causing collapse at free fall speed. Check out the science against the fiction of the 'official history'. As for the danger from this bill and to us all, congress included-one word: Wait. As for me, I think the conclusion is foregone as Ms. Wolfe posits.
 
 
+2 # Pete 2012-01-04 18:15
This should be what all the talk is about these days, not the endless drivel coming out of Iowa, now New Hampshire, then S. Carolina, then Florida, endlessly on to November.
 
 
-4 # heatherd3c04 2012-01-05 09:19
Apparently she didn't bother to read the actual final bill. Section 1031 reads
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require-
18 ment to detain a person in military custody under
19 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
20 States.

I find it funny that so many conspiracy theorists like to stir up turmoil and their followers don't bother to check the facts and apparently they themselves don't either!
 
 
+2 # Huck Mucus 2012-01-05 14:43
I find it funny that you don't understand the meaning of the word "requirement." They aren't required to detain a citizen of the United States under that section. But they can if they want to. Duh!
 

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.

RSNRSN