The NDAA lawsuit moves through the courts.
To refresh your memory, about the only bipartisan piece of legislation to make it's way out of our hopelessly poisoned political system in years is the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 which offers up the following atrocity.
Subtitle D — Counterterrorism
SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL. — Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS. — A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) 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,including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR. — The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
Now, here's the question you might think to be asking yourself.
If someone can be held without trial until the "end of hostilities" how can they possibly seek to demonstrate that a charge of having "supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces" is false?
That's before you even begin to start wondering about the fact that the federal government has supported and partnered with Al Queda for a generation .... think Libya for just the most recent example.
Which of course makes most of both houses of Congress, the last two Presidents of the United States, not to mention the current front runner for the Democrat nomination for President of the United States along with likely most of the CIA, units of "Military Intelligence, and certain investment banks, bankers and hedge funds guilty as sin of this very charge.
Which of course makes it obvious to any thoughtful person that this statute will be pursued selectively.
Not to even mention the fact that Al Queda is an invention of, if not a wholly owned subsidiary of the Federal Government of the United States of America.
Here's a link to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explaining in one minute and twenty seconds how it is that "We" created Al Queda in the course of running the Soviets out of Afghanistan.
"We" of course meaning for purposes of this conversation, someone other than "Me".
Finally, dwell for a second on the likilhood of an extrememly profitable and useful undeclared war against an enemy that we support financially ever officially coming to an end.
So anyway, here's an eight minute or so interview with Chris Hedges who among others has sued the United States Government in order to have this piece of legislation overturned as unconstitutional, wherein he discusses the progress of his lawsuit.
Finally, you may wish to reflect on the absence of this issue from you evening news report.
- Read more about The NDAA lawsuit moves through the courts.
- Log in or register to post comments