National Defense Authorization Act of 2012

Traditionally, the National Defense Authorization Act is a yearly spending bill that allows the military to operate for the year covered by the bill. The yearly renewal of this bill has traditionally been quick and non-controversial.

However...

This year the NDAA has provisions that basically allows for two things:

1. Military detention (without trial) of those suspected of links to al qaeda, taliban, or of planning or carrying out attacks against the U.S. and coalition partners. It states that this detention will be continuous until the "end of hostilities".
   
2. "Transfer of custody" of "covered persons" to any foreign entity.

These two sections are troubling to me.

The "military detention" provision has a "waiver for national security" which applies to "paragraph 1", which allows for the military detention. "Paragraph 1" refers to paragraph two, which contains the specific limitation to suspected terrorists.

My concern is that this waiver could be interpreted to allow the Secretary of Defense to "waive" the limitation to suspected terrorists. The bill only requires a written "certification" be sent to congress that the "wiaver" is necessary for "national security". If such a waiver to submitted, it is conceivable that this could allow the indefinite military detention of individuals that have no association with terrorist groups.

The "transfer of custody" section is worrisome because it allows the military to skirt U.S. laws pertaining to treatment of prisoners (specifically those prohibiting torture) by sending "covered persons" abroad for "detention". This practice, known as "extraordinary rendition", has been in practice for years. However the authority to do this is pieced together from pieces of different laws and disparate provisions of the "Patriot Act". Since this authority is piecemeal, the legality of that authority has been questionable. If this law passes, "extraordinary rendition" will be codified in law.

There is a provision that supposedly exempts U.S. citizens from military detention. There is another provision that supposedly exempts "lawful resident aliens" (green card holders) and their activities within the United States. I struggle with these exemptions because most lawmakers specifically state that this applies "American citizen or not" (quoted from Lindsey Graham and verified by calling his office in DC).

There is legal ambiguity as to whether or not current law allows for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and "resident aliens". The only institution that could clear up this ambiguity is the Judicial branch. However, the bill specifically removes judicial oversight by moving the entire process to military tribunals. The Supreme Court could take the extraordinary step of declaring that citizens are "resident aliens" are NOT subject to this law. However, considering the current makeup of the court, and the fact that the entire process will be outside their jurisdiction, that possibility seems quite slim.

When I called Senator Graham's office to inquire about this, his staff seemed unaware of the provisions exempting U.S. Citizens and "resident aliens". I asked about the constitutionality of this bill, I was told that is the job of the Supreme Court.

This bill passed the House of Representatives, but that version didn't have these troubling provisions. Now that the bill passed the Senate, it must be "reconciled" with the House version, then the "reconciled" bill must be passed by both houses.

Even if you agree with the indefinite detention provisions, the legal ambiguity of existing detention laws makes this very dangerous. Please contact your representative in the House of Representatives and ask them to vote against any "reconciled" bill that includes these harmful provisions. These provisions were slipped into a spending bill to force it through congress. Afterall, any representative who votes against it will be labelled "unamerican" and "against the troops". Our representatives need to know that we will support them if they vote this bill down because of these provisions.

Use the following link to contact your representative:

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

You can also call the white house and ask the President to veto such a bill if it reaches his desk.

White House Comment Line: 202-456-1111

Response to Tony Perkins - Jesus Was a Free Marketer

My Take: Jesus was a free marketer, not an Occupier

To use the parable of the minas to claim that Jesus was a free marketer is simply political spin. Keep in mind that Mr. Perkins is the leader of the "Family Research Council", which is one of the most vile homophobic organizations around. The FRC has made it their mission to malign single mothers, poor people, and gay people.

When I read the parable of the Minas, I see industriousness being rewarded and sloth being punished. I see nothing of "free markets".

The reason I doubt Mr. Perkin's "free market" comparison is because of what Jesus actually said (not in a parable) to a wealthy young man who asked what he should do to inherit eternal life:
"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." Matthew 19:21

The boy went away sad, unwilling to give up his vast wealth to help the poor. Then Jesus turned to his disciples and said:
"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:24

So, Jesus seems to deplore greedy people who horde wealth and do nothing for the poor. Keeping that in mind, the parable of the Minas (Luke 19) seems to be about rewarding industriousness and punishing sloth.

I would like to point out some fallacies that Mr. Perkins also attempts to pass in his article:

1. He states that "each of us is given the same opportunity to build our lives", which is demonstrably false. The child of an auto mechanic doesn't have the same opportunities as the child of a doctor. The child of a welfare mother does not have the same opportunities as the child of an auto mechanic.
2. He talks about "occupiers" who trash public property, and engage in anti-social behavior. I don't believe the intent of OWS is to "trash" anything. Many of the nasty pictures people see are AFTER the encampment has been trashed by the police. The OWS camps that I visited (in Seattle and Minneapolis) were clean and well organized. I'm not sure what anti-social behavior he is referring to. OWS is collaborative and sociable by it's very nature. Rioting is anti-social, but it seems to have only happened in Oakland. Oakland has a history of rioting, which cannot be associated with OWS.
3. He states that "wins and losses are determined by the diligence and determination of the individual". If our "free market" system were truly merit / results based, there would be no reason for OWS to exist. OWS exists because of a peculiar blend of "laissez faire" / crony capitalism, and merit / results NOT being rewarded. OWS exists because the economic and political systems have been corrupted by power, influence and money.
4. He states that "[abuses] are not inevitable or intrinsic to free enterprise". I tend to disagree! Totally free markets are prone to consolidation and manipulation. Mr. Perkins must be living on a planet inhabited by a species much more noble and honest than homo sapiens. Free markets can be beneficial until they are consolidated and manipulated by powerful players. Once that happens the entire system is liable to crash. There are few forces on earth that can challenge the powerful players that manipulate markets, and government regulation is one of them. The fact is that Mr. Perkin's political party has meticulously gutted every state and federal financial regulatory agency.

He closes by saying: "our free market system works when bridled by morality. Not arbitrary morality that changes with political parties, but transcendent moral principles."

Mr. Perkins is again talking about his fantasy planet.

Perhaps on Kolob (planet where God lives according to Mormons), Mr. Perkins morality guides the markets. I suspect that morality guides those markets because Jesus is standing near the opening bell with a whip!

On the planet Earth, the morality of homo sapiens is easily over-run by greed when "no one is watching". Since Jesus isn't standing on Wall Street with a whip, we need some way of controlling the greed, consolidation, and manipulation.

Republicans like to champion the "self regulation" doctrine, while ignoring the complete and repeated failure of that doctrine.

I personally don't support overbearing regulations. But I support regulations that ensure the safety, sustainability, and fairness of industry and markets. Based on results, industry and markets are unable to properly enforce rules even if they make the rules.

I also don't support the idea that OWS should be sleeping in parks. Not only is it an eyesore, it tends to lead to unhygienic conditions. It also has a tendency to attract elements that most Americans would consider deplorable (drugs, prostitution, etc.). People will pay more attention to clean, organized, peaceful protesters than they will dingy, chaotic, rowdy protesters.

IMHO