I was at first, very uncool with this bill. After taking some time to review everything to do with it, contrasted against provisions of the Patriot Act, I find this bill to be a counter to the Patriot Act. It has been sold in the manner you see now simply because it was crafted largely by Republicans and a repeal of the Patriot Act at this time is political suicide for the right. What the NDAA-2012 does with respect to S1867 is limit almost the entire counter terrorism jurisdiction to the military. This very thing elevates the quality and requirements to take action as the military has had measures in-place for 40+ years, guidelines for counter terrorism, global and domestic penalties for breaking international law. In contrast, the FBI has around two decades and almost no checks and balances in their dealings and no responsibility in recourse (ie.. no penalty for fucking up). The military has been authorized long ago to work within our shores for various reasons. The idea that this is groundbreaking is only used to sell the idea that this bill is bad. Why would Obama not support this if it is indeed a good thing for civil liberties? I think you will find your answer in the flawless continuation of Bush policy for war in the middle east. So why would the ACLU be against this bill? Simple, the ACLU has no say in military courts and they see one of the biggest issues of our time slipping beyond their watchful eye. I like the ACLU and Obama, but I think they are selling this one in self interest, not ours. Summery: S1867 of the NDAA counters the overstepping of the Patriot Act. |
|
Contributors > Richard Gates >
NDAA2012 - S1867 and the practice of discrediting accountability?posted Jan 1, 2012 10:22 AM by Richard Gates [ updated Jan 1, 2012 11:10 AM ] |
 |
All material on this site is not the property of citicommons.com or the site owner. Permission for rebroadcast or redistribution of any material must come form the source and/or owner.
