fuckyeahmarxismleninism

January 11, 2012, Washington, DC – Today, on the tenth anniversary of the arrival of the first detained men at the U.S. prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) issued the following statement:

Today marks the tenth anniversary of indefinite detention without charge or fair trials at the prison at Guantánamo, and it is an anniversary that should not have come. The men indefinitely detained at Guantánamo have been abandoned by all three branches of government, but the primary responsibility for the prison remaining open lies with President Obama.

On his second day in office, President Obama signed an Executive Order mandating the closure of Guantánamo within a year.  Since then, his administration has in fact perpetuated and sanctioned the system at Guantánamo by continuing indefinite detentions without charge or trial, resuming illegitimate military commissions, and most recently, signing into law the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which substantially hinders the closure of Guantánamo by restricting the transfer of the remaining 171 detained men, over half of whom have been approved for transfer by every branch of government with a stake in the matter.

Despite its promise of a new era of accountability and respect for the rule of law, the Obama administration has also repeatedly acted to block virtually any accountability for those who have planned, authorized, and committed torture at Guantánamo and beyond.

On this day marking ten years of injustice at Guantánamo, we call on people of conscience everywhere to demand that the prison finally be closed and to intensify opposition to all unjust U.S. detentions and prosecutions conducted in the name of national security. We must also build opposition to the government’s covert and overt wars in a re-branded “War on Terror” which is being used to justify both military detentions and military strikes to the detriment of the safety and dignity of peoples in the United States and abroad.

whisperedinsecret:

Note the timing.  Just as she is saying that NDAA criminalizes our speech they arrest her as if the cops had a black light bulb go off in their microscopic brains and thought  “yeah we now have the power to arrest her for saying that.”  BREAKING: NYPD Silencing Protesters Live!! from informing the general public that NDAA passed (by OperationLeakS)

Anonymous asked:

Could you explain the difference between the NDAA and the Patriot Act? I haven't been able to make the distinction, really.

First, I should note that there continues to be a strong debate on whether the NDAA actually allows for indefinite detention of US citizens (it should be a red flag whenever legislative intent is unclear). The language used is ambiguous, thus leading to different interpretations. The simple fact that it is vague opens it up to being interpreted as allowing for the indefinite detention of US citizens.

The Patriot Act allows the government to essentially spy on citizens suspected of terrorism. It opened up privacy laws to allow government access to phone and financial records. It also allowed for the indefinite detention of NON-U.S. citizens suspected of terrorist activities. Thus, the primary difference, and it would seem to support this interpretation (otherwise why enact new provisions in the NDAA), is that the NDAA appears to allow for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens.

Personally, indefinite detention of citizens or non-citizens is a violation of human rights, so both acts are egregious. 

I am far from an expert on such matters, so if someone else would like to respond, please do. 

[Complete Signing Statement]

On Saturday, December 31, 2011, President Barack Obama reluctantly signed a defense authorization bill, saying he was concerned about some in Congress who want to restrict options used by counterterrorism officials.

"I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists," he said of the $662 billion legislation.

The White House had lifted a veto threat against the bill after legislators made changes in language involving detainees.

In particular, the legislators added language to make clear that nothing in the bill requiring military custody of al Qaeda suspects would interfere with the ability of civilian law enforcement to carry out terrorism investigations and interrogations in the United States.

The House approved the bill on December 14, and a 86-13 vote in the Senate the next day completed the necessary congressional action.

At issue was the president’s authority in deciding whether people detained in terrorism investigations would be held in military or civilian custody.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the legislation includes a “national security waiver” that allows the president to transfer a suspect from military to civilian custody if he chooses.

"I want to clarify that my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in a statement Saturday. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."

Obama said a section of the bill provides the “executive branch” with broad authority on military custody for non-citizen detainees.

The legislators also agreed on tough sanctions language for the Iranian Central Bank, aimed at punishing Iran for its nuclear program.

The measure “will put real additional pressure on the Iranians so they are going to pay a bigger and bigger price, if they continue to move towards nuclear weapons,” said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

In addition, legislators agreed to tough new restrictions on Pakistan to ensure that country is not participating in the manufacture and transport of improvised explosive devices, or IEDs — the hidden bombs that have caused havoc for coalition forces in Afghanistan.

"Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people," the president said Saturday.

UPDATE: Obama Has NOT Signed the NDAA (Yet)

There was some confusion regarding the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act. A friend texted me the previous article saying the NDAA had been signed. I tried to do source checking on my phone and found a number of things that appeared to support that report, so I posted. I apologize for fueling this confusion. Thepete brought this correction to my attention. 

According OpenCongress.org, Obama has NOT yet signed the 2012 NDAA. Please refer to HR 1540 to stay updated on the official passing of the NDAA. 

What caused the confusion was this news report from TPM:

Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed speculation Wednesday that President Barack Obama would issue a signing statement when he makes the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and its controversial detention provisions law.

“We made really substantial progress in moving from something that was really unacceptable to the administration to something with which we still have problems,” Holder said in response to a question from the Wall Street Journal’s Evan Perez. “But I think through these procedures, with these regulations we will be crafting, we can minimize the problems that will actually affect us in an operational way.”

Holder said the language of the NDAA had been moved in a “substantial way” from some of the original language which led the president to issue a veto threat.

If the above report is true and he will be issuing a signing statement, well then I bring your attention to a video of Obama promising America that he would follow the Constitution and that he would never use signing statements as an end-run around Congress (which, from his own words, is not in the President’s constitutional powers).

Indefinite Detention of American Citizens: Coming Soon to Battlefield U.S.A.

By Matt Taibbi

There’s some disturbing rhetoric flying around in the debate over the National Defense Authorization Act, which among other things contains passages that a) officially codify the already-accepted practice of indefinite detention of “terrorist” suspects, and b) transfer the responsibility for such detentions exclusively to the military.

The fact that there’s been only some muted public uproar about this provision (which, disturbingly enough, is the creature of Wall Street anti-corruption good guy Carl Levin, along with John McCain) is mildly surprising, given what’s been going on with the Occupy movement. Protesters in fact should be keenly interested in the potential applications of this provision, which essentially gives the executive branch unlimited powers to indefinitely detain terror suspects without trial.

The really galling thing is that this act specifically envisions American citizens falling under the authority of the bill. One of its supporters, the dependably-unlikeable Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, bragged that the law "basically says … for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield" and that people can be jailed without trial, be they "American citizen or not." New Hampshire Republican Kelly Ayotte reiterated that "America is part of the battlefield."

Officially speaking, of course, the bill only pertains to:

"… a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners."

As Glenn Greenwald notes, the key passages here are “substantially supported” and “associated forces.” The Obama administration and various courts have already expanded their definition of terrorism to include groups with no connection to 9/11 (i.e. certain belligerents in Yemen and Somalia) and to individuals who are not members of the target terror groups, but merely provided “substantial support.”

The definitions, then, are, for the authorities, conveniently fungible. They may use indefinite detention against anyone who “substantially supports” terror against the United States, and it looks an awful lot like they have leeway in defining not only what constitutes “substantial” and “support,” but even what “terror” is. Is a terrorist under this law necessarily a member of al-Qaeda or the Taliban? Or is it merely someone who is “engaged in hostilities against the United States”?

Here’s where I think we’re in very dangerous territory. We have two very different but similarly large protest movements going on right now in the Tea Party and the Occupy Movement. What if one of them is linked to a violent act? What if a bomb goes off in a police station in Oakland, or an IRS office in Texas? What if the FBI then “linked” those acts to Occupy or the Tea Party?

You can see where this is going. When protesters on the left first started flipping out about George Bush’s indefinite detention and rendition policies, most people thought the idea that these practices might someday be used against ordinary Americans was merely an academic concern, something theoretical.

But it’s real now. If these laws are passed, we would be forced to rely upon the discretion of a demonstrably corrupt and consistently idiotic government to not use these awful powers to strike back at legitimate domestic unrest.

Read More

National Defense Authorization Act passes House, 283-136 

foreverliberal replied to your post: House Approves National Defense Authorization Act after White House Drops Veto Threat

I wouldn’t trust Fox News.

LOL, I knew someone was going to say that! ;) Here are a few more sources since I first learned of this news (which was initially from Twitter…which sadly is better respected than Fox News lol). 
NY Times
CBS NEWS 
ACLU 
USAToday
Politico (which I post below because I appreciate the short and informative way it is presented):

The National Defense Authorization Act and its controversial provisions regarding detention of terror suspects passed the House of Representatives Wednesday night, 283-136.

The measure split Democrats right down the middle, with 93 voting in favor and 93 against legislation that President Barack Obama tactily endorsed earlier in the day by retreating from a veto threat. Though the bill passed handily just before 7:00 PM, there was a surprising amount of opposition from Tea Party faithful and other conservative GOP members, 43 of whom opposed the legislation. (A full roll call is posted here.)

"We have ensured that as we fight terrorists around the world, we also protect the civil liberties of Americans at home," House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) said in a statement issued minutes after the vote. The measure goes on to the Senate, where an earlier version of the legislation passed 93-7.

Meanwhile, civil liberties and human rights groups were in a furor Wednesday night over Obama’s decision to drop his veto threat following changes made to the detainee-related sections of the bill.

"By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law,” Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch said in a statement. “In the past, Obama has lauded the importance of being on the right side of history, but today he is definitely on the wrong side.”

House Approves National Defense Authorization Act after White House Drops Veto Threat

The House passed a massive $662 billion defense bill Wednesday night after last-minute changes placated the White House and ensured President Barack Obama’s ability to prosecute terrorist suspects in the civilian justice system.

The vote was 283-136 and reflected the strong support for annual legislation that authorizes money for the men and women of the military as well as weapons systems and the millions of jobs they generate in lawmakers’ districts.

It was a rare instance of bipartisanship in a bitterly divided Congress. The Senate is expected to pass the measure on Thursday and send it to Obama.

The House vote came just hours after the administration abandoned a veto threat over provisions dealing with the handling of terrorism suspects.

Applying pressure on House and Senate negotiators working on the bill last week, Obama and senior members of his national security team, including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, had pressed for modifications in the provisions.

Negotiators announced the changes late Monday, clearing the way for White House acceptance.

In a statement, press secretary Jay Carney said the new bill “does not challenge the president’s ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the American people.”

Specifically, the bill would require that the military take custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of Al Qaeda or its affiliates and who is involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. There is an exemption for U.S. citizens.

[Read the rest]

 The Senate voted Tuesday to keep a controversial provision to let the military detain terrorism suspects on U.S. soil and hold them indefinitely without trial — prompting White House officials to reissue a veto threat.

The measure, part of the massive National Defense Authorization Act, was also opposed by civil libertarians on the left and right. But 16 Democrats and an independent joined with Republicans to defeat an amendment by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) that would have killed the provision, voting it down with 61 against, and 37 for it.

Democrats who were also concerned about liberties compared the military policing of Americans to the detention of Americans in internment camps during World War II.

"Congress is essentially authorizing the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens, without charge," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who offered another amendment — which has not yet gotten a vote — that she said would correct the problem. "We are not a nation that locks up its citizens without charge."

Backers of military detention of Americans — a measure crafted by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) — came out swinging against Udall’s amendment on the Senate floor earlier Tuesday.

"The enemy is all over the world. Here at home. And when people take up arms against the United States and [are] captured within the United States, why should we not be able to use our military and intelligence community to question that person as to what they know about enemy activity?" Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said.

"They should not be read their Miranda Rights. They should not be given a lawyer," Graham said. "They should be held humanely in military custody and interrogated about why they joined al Qaeda and what they were going to do to all of us." [OMG…these people are running our government…so frightening!!]

The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act would authorize defense spending on military personnel, weapons and war. The first draft of the bill won support from both parties in Congress in October, passing out of the Senate Armed Services Committee with just Udall dissenting. A similar House bill allocating $690 billion for the Pentagon passed in May, without the controversial measure. It could be changed when the differing versions are merged, if Congress desires.

The U.S. Senate is considering the unthinkable: changing detention laws to imprison people — including Americans living in the United States itself — indefinitely and without charge.

The Defense Authorization bill — a “must-pass” piece of legislation — is headed to the Senate floor with troubling provisions that would give the President — and all future presidents — the authority to indefinitely imprison people, without charge or trial, both abroad and inside the United States.

Urge your Senators to oppose sections 1031 and 1032 in S.1253, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA).  

If enacted, sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA would:

1)  Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;

(2)  Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and 

(3)  Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.

VISIT ACLU TO SEND A LETTER OF OPPOSITION DIRECTLY TO YOUR SENATORS