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.

UPDATE: This video was uploaded on youtube yesterday as if it were a new video.  I presumed it was recent. Apparently this was from July 24, 2011; and it had been previously reported in Dec. 2008 that these troops would be deployed by 2011. 

Related References I have been able to locate:

Washington Post: Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security U. S. To

ArmyTimes: Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1, 2008

TakeNoMore.Org: Plan to Deploy Troops Domestically To Counter Civil Unrest
Global Research: Towards Martial Law in America: Authority to Deploy Troops Domestically during ‘National Emergencies’|CorbettReport: U.S. Army prepares to invade U.S.
NewsMax: Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack
NaturalNews: Financial Disaster Will Lead to Civil Disorder in 2009 or 2010, Says Secret Citibank Memo

For those more educated on such matters - why are troops typically deployed within the U.S.? What are the military trained against domestically? For the military folk out there, do you think the culture within the troops is such that soldiers would be willing to follow orders against the American people? This is why we MUST reach out to our military youth.



by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

There is no particular political genius to the Occupy Wall Street movement, no soaring, searing vision that sets the world afire in some new and different way. When it comes to political analysis, much of what emanates from the swirl of activity is no more than soggy old left-liberal reformism that only feels more dynamic when wrapped in a youthful, “movement” package. And yet it is the most promising mass U.S. phenomenon in more than forty years. Why, and why now?

The power of the movement derives from the inexorable logic of its animating slogans. It is, at root, opposed to the rule of finance capital – although even the word “capital” is repugnant to some participants who believe themselves to be engaged in a spiritual quest far beyond the parameters of political economy. Nevertheless it is a fact that opposition to the rule of finance capital – to Wall Street – is opposition to capitalism as it actually exists in the here and now. Judging by the ballooning of the movement and the demeanor of its troops, opposition to capitalism as it actually exists turns out to be an exquisitely exhilarating and fulfilling activity, whether those so engaged consider themselves socialists or not.

The anti-Wall Street slogans and rhetoric have their own logic and dynamic that should – in struggle and over time – push aside left-liberal pabulum and weak reformist nostrums that cannot possibly even begin to contain, much less defeat, the hegemonic power of massed capital.

“Opposition to capitalism as it actually exists turns out to be an exquisitely exhilarating and fulfilling activity, whether those so engaged consider themselves socialists or not.”

It did not take genius to identify the rule of finance capital as the common enemy of humankind. Millions, if not billions, have already come to that conclusion, and the inevitable trajectory of capital was predicted and plotted long ago. But the United States, a nation conceived as a white man’s empire and singularly dedicated to the project of business, confronts the 21st century as a political-cultural desert, a place where May Day is largely unknown, supplanted by a Labor Day four months removed on the calendar and eons away in class content. The centrality of racial oppression has so distorted relationships of class that the very language is impoverished and popular political discussion, infantilized.


Why Occupy Wall Street Has Left Washington Behind

Gordon Lafer   

Public discussion of the Wall Street protests has focused on the movement’s indictment of the economic elite, but Occupy Wall Street marks an equally profound critique of the country’s political system. As the weeks tick by, the protests at Zuccotti Park and across the nation are driving home this profound realization: this is a fight that can’t be won by voting. The crisis that most fundamentally shapes our lives cannot be solved through the legislative process. This is not because the agenda is unpopular—54 percent of Americans support OWS, with only 23 percent opposed—but because the system is corrupted beyond repair. This slowly dawning realization is both invigorating—an invitation to engage in the kind of bold, blue-sky strategic thinking that leftists have not entertained for decades—and disturbing, a harbinger of just how nasty the future may get.

What makes OWS different from the mass marches against the Iraq War or at the 2004 GOP convention is not just that it’s an ongoing occupation rather than a one-day affair. It’s that this protest is not, at its core, voicing an appeal to lawmakers. Click through to read more. 


American troops may be leaving Iraq before the end of the year, but U.S. contractors aren’t going anywhere soon.

ABC News reports that the State Department “is expected to have about 5,000 security contractors in Iraq as of January 2012 (they already have about 3,000 in country).” There will also be 4,500 “general life support” contractors to provide food and medical services.

And (in my experience) contractors do not receive near the same support and benefits.