RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Wolf writes: "While US government lawyers persist in defending the menacing Section 1021 in court, a Senate initiative makes matters worse."

Wolf writes:
Wolf writes: "While US government lawyers persist in defending the menacing Section 1021 in court, a Senate initiative makes matters worse." (photo: Guardian UK)


Feinstein Amendment Doubles Down on NDAA

By Naomi Wolf, Guardian UK

06 December 12

 

While US government lawyers persist in defending the menacing Section 1021 in court, a Senate initiative makes matters worse

s I reported here, last spring a group of journalists and activists including Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky and Tangerine Bolen, led by counsel Bruce Afran and others, sued President Obama to halt the implementation of Section 1021 in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which would have allowed for the indefinite detention of Americans without charge or trial. The vague definition of who could be detained included individuals who were seen to provide "substantial support" to al-Qaida's "associated forces" - wording that provided no protection for journalists interviewing, for example, detainees in Guantánamo, or activists and advocates working with prisoners on their cases.

I was present in Judge Katharine Forrest's New York courtroom when she repeatedly asked Obama's lawyers if they could assure her that Section 1021 could not be used to detain people engaged in journalism or peaceful protest. The government's lawyers repeatedly refused to give her those assurances, or assurances that US citizens were not already being detained under the NDAA. Forrest ultimately blocked the implementation of the act.

But the US government appealed the ruling. In October, a court agreed to stay the implementation of Forrest's injunction and hear the appeal. Afran has read the government's new brief for the case, and pointed out that the lawyers now argue that the NDAA won't be used to militarily detain individuals considered "independent journalists" or "independent" public advocates without charges or trial.

Who is considered an "independent journalist"? Afran noted, for example, that journalists associated with an outlet - like Bob Woodward - would not be considered "independent journalists", but self-employed or unemployed journalists are (though, in journalism, contracts and associations are much more complicated than that). He also added that almost all advocates are not "independent", as they are part of a movement or group with a philosophy. So, in the government's brief, the lawyers have gone even further than they did before in corralling new types of individuals who can legally be detained indefinitely without a civil trial.

To make matters worse, a recent development sees the threat of the NDAA on US citizens increasing. Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein recently introduced an amendment to the 2013 NDAA, which, at first, seems to protect Americans' due process - but, on closer examination, can be easily misinterpreted. Afran said that the Feinstein amendment "puts a gloss" on a very dangerous situation,

"First of all, the Feinstein amendment does not say that people in the US can't be put into military custody. It simply says they can't be taken into indefinite military custody without 'trial'. If they are taken into military custody, they have to be given a trial of some sort - but not due process in a civil court. The [kind of] trial this refers to would be ... military tribunals. So the Feinstein amendment does virtually nothing for American citizens or people in the United States in terms of protection."

The original law at least left the issue of military detention somewhat ambiguous, but this amendment actually makes matters worse by explicitly allowing the military to take Americans into custody. The measure infringes on Americans' constitutional rights, asserts Afran, who explained that, since 1861, the US supreme court has written in at least four decisions that "people living in the US - citizens or not - cannot be taken into military custody and denied a trial in civil courts." Unforunately, should the NDAA go through, this becomes the law of the land:

"Our system says a law is in force unless a court says otherwise. The president is considering vetoing the bill. We don't know if it will be passed by the House, then signed by the president. If it is, we may have to go back to the trial court."

As for the amendment, major media - like the Huffington Post - are taking Feinstein's amendment at face value as a measure of preventing Americans from being indefinitely detained by the military. Even Michael McAuliff's HuffPo piece ran with an erroneous headline that read "Indefinite Detention: Senate Votes Down Military Imprisonment of Americans". The few other journalists who have actually been following this story closely agree with the activists, and the American Civil Liberties Union has also chimed in, saying that the amendment actually makes indefinite detention more likely.

Shahid Buttar of the Bill of Rights Defense agrees with critics of the Feinstein amendment. He also makes the point that it would legally open the door for domestic military deployment in America:

"While the Feinstein amendment may appear helpful by restoring due process for US citizens, it unfortunately creates a host of problems: it reinforced the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) in Afghanistan as a basis for domestic military detention; offered protections only to the people least likely to face domestic military detention; invited domestic military deployment in violation of posse comitatus; and endorses a regime of unequal rights for immigrants that could destabilize other rights over time."

Many questions press on this issue: why are there repeated efforts by Congress to affirm the power of military detention of Americans? Why are Obama's lawyers drafting language that yet more broadly targets journalists and activists who might be subjected to military detention?

And, just as importantly, why is this appalling and historic set of developments not front-page news in every newspaper in the land?


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+58 # maheanuu 2012-12-06 10:50
Isn't it time that we taught these Blue Dog Dim's a few facts of life? The Constitution and Bill of Rights are as much for the Commons as they are for these obscene rich creatures..

They had best start learning, and quickly before we rise up and cast them on the dung heap of history.

Just this old Chief's 2 Cents!
 
 
+17 # Trueblue Democrat 2012-12-06 11:15
"And, just as importantly, why is this appalling and historic set of developments not front-page news in every newspaper in the land?"

Well, can you say: Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. or Sumner Murray Redstone or the Sarnoff family -- people who have largely controlled news flow in this country in recent times.

As for the lies that were manufactured in the Bush Administration' s Departments of Defense and State -- lies that fanned the hysteria that led to the so-called Patriot Act and subsequent acts of paranoia, such as the NDAA -- can you say: Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Abram Shulsky, and Richard Perle.

Sulzberger, Redstone (aka Rothstein), Sarnoff, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Shulsky, Perle, Feinstein.

Hmmmmmmmmmm. Anyone see a pattern here?
 
 
+12 # in deo veritas 2012-12-06 12:55
Pretty obvious to anyone risking being accused of anti-semitism. Facts are facts and have nothing to do with prejudices-just with perception.
 
 
+5 # dkonstruction 2012-12-07 10:24
Quoting in deo veritas:
Pretty obvious to anyone risking being accused of anti-semitism. Facts are facts and have nothing to do with prejudices-just with perception.


Selective presentation of "facts" have everything to do with prejudice and perception
 
 
+4 # tingletlc 2012-12-07 14:29
Perception is mediated by prejudice. That's why we don't all see the same facts.
 
 
+4 # Duster 2012-12-08 01:18
Quoting in deo veritas:
Pretty obvious to anyone risking being accused of anti-semitism. Facts are facts and have nothing to do with prejudices-just with perception.


That is either the most profoundly naieve or most cynical assertion I have seen for a while. Fact are interpretations of evidence. Anyone whose has been on a jury knows that, or should.
 
 
+18 # MJnevetS 2012-12-06 13:30
Roger Eugene Ailes, Rupert Murdoch, Chase Carey, Dick Cheyney, George Bush, anyone see a pattern here?
 
 
+15 # RODNOX 2012-12-07 06:08
ALL ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE
 
 
0 # fliteshare 2012-12-08 09:07
From Riches to Stupid ?
 
 
+2 # dkonstruction 2012-12-07 10:22
Quoting Trueblue Democrat:
"And, just as importantly, why is this appalling and historic set of developments not front-page news in every newspaper in the land?"

Well, can you say: Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. or Sumner Murray Redstone or the Sarnoff family -- people who have largely controlled news flow in this country in recent times.

As for the lies that were manufactured in the Bush Administration's Departments of Defense and State -- lies that fanned the hysteria that led to the so-called Patriot Act and subsequent acts of paranoia, such as the NDAA -- can you say: Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Abram Shulsky, and Richard Perle.

Sulzberger, Redstone (aka Rothstein), Sarnoff, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Shulsky, Perle, Feinstein.

Hmmmmmmmmmm. Anyone see a pattern here?


So, i suppose you ignore or don't mention Rubpert Murdoch on the media end of things or Condi Rice on the State Department Side or Robert Gates on the DOD side because none of these fit in with your notion of a jewish conspiracy.
 
 
+1 # MJnevetS 2012-12-08 12:31
dkonstruction, It galls me that pointing out clearly prejudiced commentary caused yout to receive 'thumbs downs'. There is an alarmingly high (for a supposedly liberal website) number of people who regularly spout antisemitic nonsense. When I have tried to address it I have gotten massive 'thumbs downs'. They follow up with the old canard that they are anti-Zionist, not antisemitic. The problem is that it is one thing to say you are against how the government of a country is being run (we do it regularly on this site) it is quite another to claim that a country's existence is an anathema. This blames ALL the citizens of a country for its leader's decisions. I would not want to be held accountable for even half of the decisions made in the US by our leaders! Let the flames begin.
 
 
+5 # Johnny 2012-12-08 18:15
You are absolutely right that Zionists do not speak for all Jews, any more than Nazis spoke for all Teutons. The problem is that the racist propagandists claim to speak for the whole group, and many people, both members of the group and outsiders, believe them.
 
 
+2 # dkonstruction 2012-12-12 11:19
Quoting MJnevetS:
dkonstruction, It galls me that pointing out clearly prejudiced commentary caused yout to receive 'thumbs downs'. There is an alarmingly high (for a supposedly liberal website) number of people who regularly spout antisemitic nonsense. When I have tried to address it I have gotten massive 'thumbs downs'. They follow up with the old canard that they are anti-Zionist, not antisemitic. The problem is that it is one thing to say you are against how the government of a country is being run (we do it regularly on this site) it is quite another to claim that a country's existence is an anathema. This blames ALL the citizens of a country for its leader's decisions. I would not want to be held accountable for even half of the decisions made in the US by our leaders! Let the flames begin.


Ageed MJnevetS and thanks for the comment. It is indeed depressing to see the number of overtly (even if couched in seemingly benign language) anti-semitic comments on this board. It is equally depressing to see the number of overtly racist anti-arab/anti- palestinian comments. The thumbs up that many of these comments receive is equally if not more depressing. I continue to challenge such comments not because i think they will necessarily have any impact on the posters but rather for other readers to see as i think these kind of comments need to be challenged all the time and not simply give them a pass.
 
 
+5 # tingletlc 2012-12-07 14:23
I think I know what pattern *you* see; if I'm right, I give you a thumbs-down for prejudicial simple-mindedne ss and a further thumbs-down (notionally; the system won't let me do it in fact) for ignorance, since you include Donald Rumsfeld in your list. Apologies if I've missed something. If I have, what is it?
 
 
+7 # dkonstruction 2012-12-07 14:39
Quoting Trueblue Democrat:
"And, just as importantly, why is this appalling and historic set of developments not front-page news in every newspaper in the land?"

Well, can you say: Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. or Sumner Murray Redstone or the Sarnoff family -- people who have largely controlled news flow in this country in recent times.

As for the lies that were manufactured in the Bush Administration's Departments of Defense and State -- lies that fanned the hysteria that led to the so-called Patriot Act and subsequent acts of paranoia, such as the NDAA -- can you say: Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Abram Shulsky, and Richard Perle.

Sulzberger, Redstone (aka Rothstein), Sarnoff, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Shulsky, Perle, Feinstein.

Hmmmmmmmmmm. Anyone see a pattern here?


I'm not sure which is more depressing, your comment or the fact that as of this posting it got 20 thumbs up. the comment is essentially saying that the problem with the US media is not that it is controlled by a handfull of giant corporations but rather that it is controlled by Jews. The same goes for his comment about runs the US gov't (not the capitalist class or the 1% or however you want to put it but again by Jews).

To those who gave you a thumbs up can you please explain what about Trueblue Democrat's comment you agreed with?
 
 
+5 # Johnny 2012-12-07 17:35
D, I wasn't aware that Donald Rumsfeld was a Jew. But you are the one who leaps to the conclusion that being Jews is the reason we note how evil these men are. That is not true. The thing they all have in common from which their evil originates is that they are Zionists. If we were to criticize the evil or Hitler, Goebbels, and Hoess, would we blame their evil on their being German, or on their being Nazis? In both cases, the evil originates in a doctrine of racial supremacy, not in the nationality or religion of the criminals.
 
 
+3 # dovelane1 2012-12-08 05:21
The evil exists not in their doctrine of "racial supremacy," but in their xenophobia - the fear of anything that is "alien" or different from what their norm is.

The attitude can be based on prejudice or bias. Prejudice is the harder to change because the assumptions are being made by a zealot.

It could be said that all zealots are xenophobes of one form or another.

The idea of racial supremacy just leads validation of, and support for, their xenophobia.

Most people don't want to admit to how much fear is part of their hatred, because it would force them to look at, and admit to how weak they truly are.

In this sense, racial supremecists are nothing more than bullies, only on a bigger stage, with more nasty, dangerous, and far-reaching consequences.
 
 
+2 # fliteshare 2012-12-08 09:11
I agree all hatred originates from fear.
 
 
+40 # rjz7 2012-12-06 11:29
If these folks are so concerned about a world government usurping the US government, they ought to be really worried about trade agreements (in particular the TTP) and the so called free market economy. The financial institutions are the greatest threat to our independence.
 
 
+40 # Charles3000 2012-12-06 11:31
This happened at the peak of the Occupy movement last year. I think it is obvious that some, maybe many, in the congress were frightened by the potential of the Occupy movement. I think the language was put in the NDAA last year as a reaction to the Occupy movement.
 
 
+19 # cafetomo 2012-12-06 11:35
..and we thought a police state was an unpleasant prospect.
 
 
+25 # dick 2012-12-06 11:39
Not wanting to be outflanked on the right, or BLAMED for an attack, Bo morphed into Cheney lite. Election's over. Habeas Corpus is the single most important provision in the Constitution so many profess to love. What good's the rest if you are being secretly held in an Obama-Biden-Hil lary-Kerry-Rice dungeon?
 
 
+40 # lorenbliss 2012-12-06 11:47
The purpose behind the Feinstein Amendment is obvious when it is viewed in conjunction with the government's related efforts. All these actions, including the surveillance of all U.S. residents, are the prelude to domestic imposition of a genuine Gestapo-type secret-police regime.

Obviously this serves at least two tyrannical purposes: (1) is the suppression of dissent against the brazenly escalating imperialism of U.S. foreign policy -- note again the semiotic message conveyed by the Nazi-like helmets of the U.S. military machine; (2) is crushing, before it flares into full rebellion, the growing grassroots rage against capitalism – an anger already evident in the new labor activism.

The prospect of nominally petty-bourgeois ie anti-war protesters and Working Class militants achieving solidarity via a single movement clearly terrifies the One Percent and their political toadies whether Democrat or Republican.

Meanwhile, in the unanimity by which the National Defense Authorization Acts are approved by Congress, we see for a moment that we are in fact ruled by a single party of the One Percent – the tyranny normally camouflaged by the Big Lie of U.S. bipartisan constitutional democracy.

The only question is when the midnight knocks on the doors will begin -- if indeed they have not begun already.
 
 
+37 # Johnny 2012-12-06 11:52
Even Naomi misses the point. The government and plaintiffs' focus on what kind of people (journalists, etc.) can be detained is smoke. The point is that if you can be detained without charges or it doesn't matter who you are. You never get a chance to tell a judge, "They got the wrong person"! So anybody can be indefinitely detained at any time for ANY reason or NO reason. That is the totalitarian evil of this law. Feinstein knows that the purpose of the bill is to silence criticism of Israel, and that is why she wants to make it even worse. And that is the answer to Naomi's question, "why are there repeated efforts by Congress to affirm the power of military detention of Americans?"
 
 
+30 # Johnny 2012-12-06 11:54
By the way, it does not matter what the government tells Judge Forrest. They will not be bound by it when they knock on your door at 3 a.m.
 
 
+30 # tbcrawford 2012-12-06 11:56
Indeed, where are the main stream media on such issues...and that includes Public Broadcasting. It's imperative to watch the attempts to muzzle the Internet...we can't afford to have the alternative media cut off. Or, maybe we should all subscribe to the Guardian!
 
 
+12 # in deo veritas 2012-12-06 13:00
Indeed! I found out years ago that to find out what was going on politically in my own town I had to subscribe to newspapers a hundred miles away.
 
 
+32 # goodsensecynic 2012-12-06 13:09
Pastor Niemoller is justly famous for the expression of German regret following World War II, which said in essence, When they came for the Communists, I was not a communist and I said nothing. When they came for the Jews, I was not a Jew and I said nothing. Etc. Etc. and when they came for me, there was no one left to speak at all.

Less well known is his warning (roughly translated): "If fascism comes to America, it will come on kitten feet. No 'sturm und drang' and no 'blut und boden' ... just single quiet measures, all sounding reasonable at the time, until the cumulative effect is finally understood, and then it will be too late."
 
 
+7 # cordleycoit 2012-12-06 15:08
We know the press is bought off. Hear them screaming for human rights. You will not they scream for more kick backs and quid pro with the non story.As for the courts who appointed whom for life?We can only hope that this band of rag tag reporters will be heard.
 
 
+16 # reiverpacific 2012-12-06 15:43
"First of all, the Feinstein amendment does not say that people in the US can't be put into military custody. It simply says they can't be taken into indefinite military custody without 'trial'. If they are taken into military custody, they have to be given a trial of some sort - but not due process in a civil court. The [kind of] trial this refers to would be ... military tribunals. So the Feinstein amendment does virtually nothing for American citizens or people in the United States in terms of protection." [Quote from article].
What really concerns me about this very telling paragraph -almost the core or crux of the argument against it and obviously the nebulous result of the appeal, is what nature of "TRIAL" would one be provided with?
Unless anybody so detained can afford a blue-chip lawyer and team, it would likely be a legal-aid case against the government's or military's almost bottomless well of attorneys, who tend to just wear people or private law teams down to their desired conviction.
And for all the exposure one would get in the owner-media, forget it!
Sometimes even we on the left have common cause with Libertarians and this is possibly one such instance.
 
 
0 # RHytonen 2012-12-07 07:21
Quoting reiverpacific:
"
Sometimes even we on the left have common cause with Libertarians and this is possibly one such instance.


If you looked into the Libertarian platform just a little more you would see what a preposteroisly dangerous suggestion that is.
For one thing, their extreme Free Marketism (even to the right of today's neocons) is fine with repealing the Civil Rights Act.
Once the government was (even more) absolutely in the service of business, they would be fine with such a police state whose only value was to protect personal profit.

It is obvious the MOST "protection" would ultimately go to the MOST profit, the endgame of unfettered capitalism, easier to predict today than ever.
 
 
+4 # reiverpacific 2012-12-07 19:03
Quoting RHytonen:
Quoting reiverpacific:
"
Sometimes even we on the left have common cause with Libertarians and this is possibly one such instance.


If you looked into the Libertarian platform just a little more you would see what a preposteroisly dangerous suggestion that is.
For one thing, their extreme Free Marketism (even to the right of today's neocons) is fine with repealing the Civil Rights Act.
Once the government was (even more) absolutely in the service of business, they would be fine with such a police state whose only value was to protect personal profit.

It is obvious the MOST "protection" would ultimately go to the MOST profit, the endgame of unfettered capitalism, easier to predict today than ever.

I'm certainly not a supporter of the Libertarian platform any more that I'd ha' voted for Ron Paul. Just suggesting a little common ground, as likely as it seems. I have an associate of that ilk and we have some -shall I say- "interesting and animated discussions and still come some meeting points, especially around freedom issues.
Sometimes you have to talk to the opposition and not sit in a cork-lined room like Faust.
 
 
0 # Duster 2012-12-08 01:35
Before mouthing off about Libertariansim you might want to understand it a little better. There's a pretty broad spectrum of opinion, but one commonality is that government should be as little as possible, ideally non-existent. The individual is the sole holder of rights. In that sense, Libertarians tend to be anarchists.

One common purpose is the protection of of property, which includes your rights. The people that own a business have an individual's rights, their business doesn't. There's no support in Libertarianism for stupid ideas such as giving businesses the same rights as people. Individuals have rights, not collectives of any sort - neither democracies, nor communes, nor collectives nor businesses can dictate what an individual may say or do.

Your genuine Libertarian regards the extreme Right as being just as bad as the extreme left. Both sides want to restrain what the individual can say, think, or do. Every person infavour of free speech, open borders, and the right do as they wish including not paying taxes has somethingin common with the Libertarian ideal, leftist or Tea Partier
 
 
-2 # jwb110 2012-12-06 15:44
The Constitution guarantees A Free Press. This can only be decided by amending the Constitution. That would bring the whole thing to a halt as it should be.
 
 
+15 # reiverpacific 2012-12-06 18:52
Quoting jwb110:
The Constitution guarantees A Free Press. This can only be decided by amending the Constitution. That would bring the whole thing to a halt as it should be.

So you call the current owner-media a "Free press"?
In the USA, the press is free for those who own it -period!
Hence RSN, "Democracy Now", "Alternative Radio" and the rest of the progressive alternative press who rely on skimpy donations, skeleton staffs and a desire for some depth in reporting. But you have to really dig deep and follow a trail of true curiosity to find them.
It's a disgusting fact that most Americans have never heard of names familiar to us on RSN and the progressive press and airwaves, drowned out by heavily capitalized mostly rightist channels, including now PBS (the so-called "Liberal Media" -humbug!).
Ask your neighbor who Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Helen Caldicott or David Barsamean are -they are arguably the best-known -and wait for the blank stares.
 
 
+6 # readerz 2012-12-06 23:27
I think that this issue is that we "should" have a Free Press, but if all the reporters are fired and media consolidated, there is no free press. Journalists should not need credentials in order to report: every internet and twitter user is a reporter.
 
 
+3 # Michael_K 2012-12-06 21:36
I can't help noticing that NONE of the commenters care to acknowledge, let alone explain why their sainted hero, Barack Hussein Obama, is the one promoting this and appealing Forrester's perfectly reasonable decision.

We bought a pig in a poke in 2008 (not that we had much choice then) but we compounded our mistake in 2012, when we DID have otber and much better choices.
 
 
+4 # readerz 2012-12-06 23:36
We had other choices that weren't going to get a single Electoral College vote. I doubt that Romney would have halted the use of drones and Patriot Act detentions without trials.

However, while progressives were ignored in his first term, it is time now to hold the Pres. to his 2008 promises, and give us back our democracy.

No matter who has ruined the press, these issues should be aired. I heard a rather in-depth anti-drone radio interview on the Robin Young show "Here and Now" which is aired on many NPR radio stations.

A branch of the Occupy movement could call itself "Occupy Drones," and that might resonate.

Those in the tea party that believe that black helicopters from the U.N. are going to kidnap them might agree that illegal search and seizure is not a great idea. No matter who the "little people" in America are, from whichever political Party, this issue should concern them.
 
 
+9 # RHytonen 2012-12-07 07:12
Quoting Michael_K:
I can't help noticing that NONE of the commenters care to acknowledge, let alone explain why their sainted hero, Barack Hussein Obama, is the one promoting this and appealing Forrester's perfectly reasonable decision.

We bought a pig in a poke in 2008 (not that we had much choice then) but we compounded our mistake in 2012, when we DID have otber and much better choices.


How can you assume that liberals like President Obama, or even that they voted for him?
Or even that all commenters here are liberals?
I'm considerably to the left of most liberal posters here, on most issues, and I voted for Jill Stein and every Mountain Party(=Green in WV) candidate running in 2012.
 
 
+2 # reiverpacific 2012-12-07 19:04
Quoting Michael_K:
I can't help noticing that NONE of the commenters care to acknowledge, let alone explain why their sainted hero, Barack Hussein Obama, is the one promoting this and appealing Forrester's perfectly reasonable decision.

We bought a pig in a poke in 2008 (not that we had much choice then) but we compounded our mistake in 2012, when we DID have otber and much better choices.

Like Twit Romney???
Gimme a break.
 
 
0 # Walter J Smith 2012-12-09 12:17
Quoting Walter J Smith:
Thank Heavens for Naomi Wolf! She sets a consistent and repeated example that the common 'news' sources can only dream of achieving. Is it because they are too distracted with nonsensical popularity ratings to even imagine taking themselves seriously as, potentially speaking, professionals?

Finally, we here have a most sane voice pulling together in one article the major challenges & dibilities of that most alarmingly stupid of Diane Feinstein's and of the US Senate's overwhelming bipartisan majority's vote on nonsensical, incomprehensible, South Parkishly incoherent, anti-Constitutional 'legislation.'

Oh, never mind. As soon as the clowns in the other chamber rubber stamp it, with another overwhelming bipartisan majority, Obama will rush to sign it into law, with all the usual lamestreamers in tow singing their & his praises to the higher-up Wall Streeters.

Nobody else obviously matters.

Keep in mind, GWB set a record of time in office before vetoing legislation & that gives Obama his only imaginable 'legacy' ambition: break that record.

You might notice that MANY of us commenters DID comment on what you "can't help noticing that NONE of the commenters care to acknowledge."

But to notice this, you might need to read our comments before proving you are merely full of poo poo.
 
 
+5 # FDRva 2012-12-07 01:15
The author understandably asks.

"... why is this appalling and historic set of developments not front-page news in every newspaper in the land?"

Probably for the same set of dubious intell community arguments that got Barry Obama reelected.
 
 
+3 # RHytonen 2012-12-07 13:34
Quoting FDRva:
The author understandably asks.

"... why is this appalling and historic set of developments not front-page news in every newspaper in the land?"

Probably for the same set of dubious intell community arguments that got Barry Obama reelected.


I don't know anyone who says he wasn't elected IN SPITE of them, arguing that Romney's would have been worse (and they WOULD -any Republican's would.)
We just went a step farther and voted for what MOST of America REALLY wanted bit was too lazy to find that out - Jill Stein.

Don't believe it?
See jillstein.org/i ssues,
Then look back at those ISSUES polls.
If that 40% voted, who didn't, there would be some banksters in jail already, WV would have a governor and senator who weren't owned by Big Coal and Gas, and the Fictional Cliff would be ignored as the manufactured hogwash it really is.
 
 
0 # FDRva 2014-06-07 02:49
Good thing Barry cannot run again.

There is not nearly enough London and Wall Street money available, as before, to elect him.

And he would not close Gitmo in a third term either.

Promises, promises.

Impeachment is as tempting from the Left as the Right.

Bi-partisanship has a future.
 
 
+6 # FDRva 2012-12-07 01:25
And the great beneficiary of the civil rights movement--Barac k Obama--has no problem with fascist measures as long as he is in charge of them, it would appear.
 
 
+2 # radical2013 2012-12-07 03:46
If you really want to get rid of this BS Law real quick....Have our so-called "enemies", or have fellow american citizens "indefinately detain" anyone who created/enforce s the NDAA until they rescind or declare it UNconstitutiona l. Hell it can't be a "crime, illegal, or violate their rights" if they can do it to us eh? LOL
 
 
+4 # Johnny 2012-12-07 14:03
When I was a kid, "anti-semitism" meant prejudice and animosity against Jews just for being Jews. It was something any decent person would be ashamed of. Today, "anti-semitism" means only insufficient enthusiasm for the extermination of the Palestinian people by Israel. It is something no decent person would be ashamed of.
 
 
+4 # charsjcca 2012-12-07 14:32
Rarely does anyone whose financial statement command 7 figures come down on the side of those lacking power. They never defend Private Manning.
 
 
+3 # Rita Walpole Ague 2012-12-08 11:51
Thank you so much, Naomi Wolfe, for yet another so needed and educating article. Journalistic truth telling these days is precious. And do not for one moment miss the tragic but true fact that such truth telling does not endanger the teller.

Lots and lots of courage and determination it is taking to out and overcome the world's 1%er staph infection of greed and power addiction.

Go, Naomi, go, and kudos also to our other real McCoy truth tellers, such as the brave and determined plaintiffs, legal reps. and jurist, Hon. Judge Forrest, on the Hedges, et. al. v. Obama, et. al. case.
 
 
+4 # Michael_K 2012-12-08 12:06
Reality = Obama is FOR indefinite detention without due process.

Never mind what he says or his signing statement... his actions prove it irrefutably.

Let this miscreant know that this isn't acceptable.
 
 
+2 # Walter J Smith 2012-12-08 15:35
Thank Heavens for Naomi Wolf! She sets a consistent and repeated example that the common 'news' sources can only dream of achieving. Is it because they are too distracted with nonsensical popularity ratings to even imagine taking themselves seriously as, potentially speaking, professionals?

Finally, we here have a most sane voice pulling together in one article the major challenges & dibilities of that most alarmingly stupid of Diane Feinstein's and of the US Senate's overwhelming bipartisan majority's vote on nonsensical, incomprehensibl e, South Parkishly incoherent, anti-Constituti onal 'legislation.'

Oh, never mind. As soon as the clowns in the other chamber rubber stamp it, with another overwhelming bipartisan majority, Obama will rush to sign it into law, with all the usual lamestreamers in tow singing their & his praises to the higher-up Wall Streeters.

Nobody else obviously matters.

Keep in mind, GWB set a record of time in office before vetoing legislation & that gives Obama his only imaginable 'legacy' ambition: break that record.
 

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