(apparently) we live in the twilight zone

NDAA going down in flames

Thank God that this is finally falling apart…

The National Defense Authorization Act, signed by Barack Obama on New Year’s Eve, has had its “indefinite detention” provision blocked by a federal court for violating the 1st and 5th Amendments. This is the provision that would have erroneously circumvented the Constitution and given the President the ability to indefinitely detain anyone of his choosing, including U.S. citizens, without charge or council or trial. To put it bluntly, you could’ve been illegally disappeared. This is the same bill that Obama promised NOT to sign, yet did.

With his signature he included a signing statement that recognized that he indeed would have this power, but that he “wouldn’t use it.” Right. And, oh yeah, you thought that the President didn’t agree with signing statements? Well, he said that he didn’t, but his actions have constantly shown that he does. Surprise. This ignores the fact that signing statements aren’t even lawful, have no binding status, and aren’t authorized by the Constitution for the President to ever be able to use. Did I mention ever? When a bill is presented to the President, the Constitution allows him only three choices: do nothing, sign the bill, or (if he disapproves) veto it in its entirety. He signed it. That speaks for itself. No ifs, ands, or buts…

Going back to Obama’s claiming that he’d “never use” this monstrosity of a provision… Well then my common sense immediately wants to know why it was ever included in the first place? No one from the White House has any kind of an answer for that. Oh, wait… Yes they do. They claim that the indefinite detention stuff regarding U.S. citizens was something that they wanted to take out. Really?!? In actuality, the language that would have exempted U.S. citizens from this provision was ALREADY WRITTEN INTO the originally approved bill. It was Obama’s administration that demanded that this portion be REMOVED, immediately eliminating any type of a U.S. citizen exemption to the “indefinite detention” provision.

They think that we are total idiots. They slyly throw around the use of the word “removed,” yet there wouldn’t have been anything to remove (by their talking point standards) had they not demanded that the citizen exemption BE REMOVED prior to Obama’s signing of the bill. And it’s apparent that they think we aren’t smart enough to understand this simple chain of events, that we’ll be easily confused by the semantics of its theater. That’s also ignoring the fact that this provision is illegal either way, because both citizens and non-citizens alike deserve the opportunity to be found guilty in a court of law. To the extreme cynic, it may now seem that they originally threatened to veto the bill precisely BECAUSE it included the citizen exemption, and they then reversed their course once they got that language removed and achieved their much broader definition. Plausible? You tell me…

Bottom line, we ALL owe Chris Hedges a HUGE debt of gratitude. The courage that he has undoubtedly shown, by filing his lawsuit, is inspiring, to say the absolute least. He is certainly a hero. If interested, you can read yesterday’s court order here.

What’s stunning now, is the fact that Obama is trying to act as though he was against this provision all along… Hmm. That must by why his Department of Justice was in that courtroom defending the law, urging that it be upheld, and demanding that Hedges’ lawsuit be dismissed. That must be why they actually attempted to use the following arguments: 1) That none of the plaintiffs have yet to be indefinitely detained, meaning they lack “standing” to challenge the statute; 2) That even if they had standing, the lack of imminent enforcement against them renders injunctive relief unnecessary; 3) That the NDAA creates no new detention powers beyond what 2001’s AUMF already provides.

Wow. Excuse me if I laugh at Obama’s argument that Hedges couldn’t honestly bring this lawsuit forth UNTIL he was thrown into some Guantanamo-style black pit… Um, had he been, he’d likely never of been heard from again. Have you ever read Chris Hedges? I have, and he is brilliant, absolutely one of the best “real” liberals left. He certainly wouldn’t have received a trial, or been entitled to any kind of representation. That is the point of the provision, no? Who in the hell do these people think we are? Never mind the fact that the AUMF stands for Authorization for Use of Military Force Against “Terrorists,” another completely vague and illegal law that was passed by Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush. Way to go.

All of these things are among the many other inconvenient truths that I have noted above… But no, none of this is true. Obama was against everything all along. Keep on blowin’ that hope bong y’all.

Serious question

Is the U.S. military owned and operated by the United Nations?
Take a look at this exchange from yesterday…

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was asked by Senator Jeff Sessions, “We spend our time worrying about the U.N., the Arab League, NATO and too little time, in my opinion, worrying about the elected representatives of the United States. As you go forward, will you consult with the United States Congress?”

The Defense Secretary responded “You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this. Whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress, I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.”

“I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “I don’t believe it’s close to being correct. They provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the President and the law and the Constitution.”

Where are all of my Obama people at? How do you exactly justify this type of behavior? This exact scenario has already played out in Libya, and arguably elsewhere. But I’d simply love to hear a focused response to the basis of this legal misrepresentation… Not a Republican response, coming from someone that just cheerleads Obama’s stumbles for the sake of team division, but yet would cram the same type of shit down our throats so long as it was a Republican that was doing the cramming. No, not you. But from real self-affiliating “Liberals” or “Progressives” that actually cosign this type of stuff coming from Obama. How do you square this with your understanding of our laws and what you deem to be correct?

So here we are. Nowhere in the news cycle today will you hear about a US Sgt. just pleading guilty to “negligence.” This charge stems from an incident in 2005 where this person led a massacre of 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha. This act came directly after a roadside bomb blew up around their vehicle, killing one of his men as they were driving through… They then stopped, took cover and began assessing the area. This Sgt. then gave orders to “shoot first, ask questions later.” What followed was 24 unarmed and innocent civilians being killed… 10 of those were women and children who were lined up outside and shot at point blank range. Another 6 were women and children who were huddled together in a bedroom as the troops went house to house “clearing” the area. They were all shot in the head. That leaves a handful of UNARMED Iraqi men unmentioned and unaccounted for, even though they were lined up and killed in the same manner. The “negligence” charge that this Sgt. was eventually convicted of today? It was originally “murder,” which was lessened to “involuntary manslaughter,” which was lessened again to “aggravated assault.” He will serve a whopping total of three months in jail. Seven other Marines were charged with “murder,” and like clockwork, they were all “exonerated.” I’m not allowed to point any of this out though because to many people that makes me “Un-American.” It then must mean that I’m “against all troops” and that I “hate the US military.” All of which are false. I’m just pointing out the ugliness of the Military-industrial complex. 25 innocent lives lost in a blink of an eye, and we’re supposed to just shut up about it. Nope.