Why aren't there mass protests over the NDAA bill?

[JNathanK]

Section 1021

&quot d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit
or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the
Authorization for Use of Military Force."

Section 1022

&quot a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the
Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described
in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities
authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force
(Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition
under the law of war.


(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The President may
waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits
to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is
in the national security interests of the United States.
(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL"

It says in 1021 that that particular section isn't meant to expand or limit the authority of the president, This is really just a meaningless statement of neutrality, where in the very next section it explicitly gives the president the power to use the troops to detain people, as long as he writes a memo to congress explaining why its necessary.

1021 &quot 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.

This allows the military to detain people without a trial by jury during war-time, which is scary because were technically right in the middle of an era of perpetual war according to the Pentagon. The legalese is fashioned in a way to mislead the casual reader into thinking it doesn't apply to Americans, but its just another neutral, non statement meant to create a loophole.

sec 1021&quot e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States,
or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United
States
"

All you have to do is look toward the drone strike in Yemen against Anwar Awlaki and his family to know what the current laws are pertaining to this subsection (e). He's an American citizen who was killed through a super-judicial motion from the white house. The allegation was that he encouraged Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in a plot to blow up an American airliner over Detroit, but the government won't even release any of the information that backs up their claim, stating its in the interest of national security to keep it classified. This is what's so backward about the NDAA bill too. It says that people with links to terrorism will be detained until this perpetual war finally ends, whenever that may be. However, without a trial by jury and experts to present evidence that can be rationally assessed, how are we to have any frame work to know that those captured as enemy combatants actually are bad guys working to destroy America?

Its just using wartime, the time when we need our civil liberties most, as an excuse to override the fifth amendment, just as Woodrow Wilson used wartime and national security as an excuse to override the first amendment through the Sedition Act.

Over the last decade, there have been non-Americans indefinitely detained at Guantanamo Bay, and I suppose, this is what Americans get for turning a blind eye to this type of injustice. The same courtesy alloted to foreigners will finally be alloted to us domestically. Throughout the cold war, as well, we turned a blind eye to CIA intervention in the third world in which they overthrew democratically elected leaders and propped up dictators that played directly in the interests of multi-national corporations. Since we ignored this for decades and allowed our government to suppress democracy abroad, it wouldn't be surprising to me if eventually we get a dictator like Pinochet or Suharto running things here.

Again, I don't see why people aren't protesting this legislation in massive numbers, This is a clear attack on our civil rights, a straight forward issue to rally around, and a clear indicator that our government is bought off and leading the public in a charade.

[JoePhilly]

1. Why don't you lead one?

[JNathanK]

2. I have

I was apart of some in January, right outside of John Mccains office, but we ended up making some old lady cry because she thought we were hurting local business, Then a bunch of random people told us to get a job. I'm starting to think that people are just fucking stupid, and I'm surprised they aren't in the streets demanding their civil liberties. There's a reason Nazism and Fascism were populist movements and why feudalism lasted as long as it did. I'm not saying anything openly that the elites are saying privately amongst their selves, thats for sure. I think people think they can be safe under fascism, that as long as they aren't the one's being drug off in the night and rocking the boat in any way, that they'll be just fine. I hope for the best, and I will try to organize more protests, but I wouldn't be surprised if doesn't do any good and the hostile dissolution of American freedom continues.

[JoePhilly]

3. Nazism and Fascism were "populist" movements ...

Only in the sense that the national leaders gave the "populace" a target for their anger. The Nazis blamed the Jews and others for their economic collapse after WWI.

Are you equating those things?

[JNathanK]

4. I'm not saying there isn't positive populism.

The Nazis actually started as a fringe movement too with little support, but as the depression in Germany kept progressing, it gained popular support from Germans. I just find it interesting that during rough times, people tend to react emotionally rather than assess the root of the problem rationalistically when rationalism is actually needed most. My morale is just down, but this is probably the worst time for those with an activist awareness to wallow in self pitty like a little bitch.

[JoePhilly]

5. Right, and that sounds like what the Tea Party has been doing.

The Tea Party was presented as a "populist" group, but it was in reality taken over by the leaders of the GOP. The GOP leaders gave the Tea Party alternative groups to blame for their problems.

At this point, the issues with the NDAA are not where we should focus because between Obama and Romney, we know which would happily expand the reach of that program and many others.

The GOP does not want to govern, they want to RULE.

[JNathanK]

6. I'm actually turning against both parrties

I think both of them are so much controlled by the same corporate interests that I see voting as a pointless practice at this point. All the Democrats really do is promise things like health care, government transparency, etc , but they never really deliver. Yah, Obama did deescalate Iraq, but I think it was just to free us up to get ready to go to war with Syria, Pakistan, and Iran. I find it weird that the only thing both parties could agree on was a bill that allows indefinite detention of citizens after being deadlocked on everything else. They were deadlocked on everything else virtually.

I believe more in direct action than political action. Casting a vote and expecting your candidate to take care of all the problems is just a way of complacently side stepping what real influence we do have in the world. ...and, of course, when they turn out to be the corrupt leaders we've always had, its sort of an American pass-time to bash politicians. I don't think I've met anyone who doesn't like doing it on some level, including myself. It doesn't get anyone anywhere though.

I think what the civil rights, free speech, and anti-war movements did in the 60's did more than any vote could have done. It ultimately made power afraid and made clear their limitations. It showed them there was an informed populace who, if their boundaries weren't respected, could be a threat to them, I think that's what these movements did more than anything and why their demands were met on varying levels. Its also why I think they're all reviled and resented too, because they weren't passively going along with the program.

I think if fascism comes, it'll be in the form of the neo-liberalism, blind nationalism, and vile rhetoric that the GOP has come to espouse. However, at this point, I think the Democrats are just enabling them. I don't really think a vote for Obama will reverse the path to fascism were on. My problem with him is he isn't doing anything significant, like reversing the PATRIOT act or closing Guantanamo Bay. When there was a Democrat majority too, he couldn't even get the payer system passed. I starting to think the party system is just a way of nullifying the public against itself and giving us some illusion of choice that's non-existent. I might vote for Obama, but I'm not as enthusiastic about him as I was in 2008.

[Chathamization]

7. Voting is NOT picking a Democrat or Republican for President

Voting includes primaries, local elections, and third parties. Local primaries tend to have very low turnout and have a huge influence on what happens. We recently had a city-wide politician elected here with only 6% of the registered voters voting for him! And if you want to get involved in electoral politics, voting is probably the least you can do.

People tend to jump to direct action when they've barely scratched the surface of other ways of bringing about change. Direct action might be "sexier", but - it hasn't been used successfully recently, in the past when it was successful it was used after a ton of organizing was done and other means were exhausted, not at the beginning, and when it was used successfully it was in conjunction with many other methods. By contrast, traditional activism has shown itself to be successful when people are actually willing to organize and put forth a sustained effort for a cause (not just voting).

[JNathanK]

8. Yah, I know about local elections.

I know there's more to voting than just presidential elections, but voting for a mayor or a state senator isn't going to have any effect on national security or international affairs.

I just think this is a clear issue to rally around though, and I really am convinced the political process is a charade. I don't think Americans really know how dire the situation is, and the fact that the democrats and republicans were so unanimous on this legislation and Obama signed it into law, makes me lose faith in the system. I think all this stuff with the health care bill is just superficial a bone they're throwing us. If anything, its just a give me to private insurance companies, because its now mandatory that we pay money to them, Real health care reform would have been to raise taxes on the banks and corporations, who had record growth due to the bailout, and use that money to pay for education, health care, and housing, no strings attached.

People don't accumulate power to have it. They do so to use it. I suspect that the economic situation may be way worst than what they're letting on., so that's why such draconian legislation is being passed. In a lot of ways, I think Obama is even worst than Bush, because at least Bush captured and detained suspected terrorists. Obama's just ordering drone strikes to outright kill people, some of which have turned out to be innocent and have any evidence supporting their guilt. Whole families are often taken out too. At least at Guantanamo, they could be released after a long indefinite detainment. This of course can't happen if they're dead from a drone attack.

So, I think focusing on reelecting Obama as Joe Philly suggests is truly a waste of time. The whole political system, as well as the mainstream news, is meant to neutralize people by pitting them against their selves so the owners of this country can carry out their plans of domination. At least if enough people are in the streets protesting the NDAA, they'll know that were not completely docile and subservient, and know their boundaries.

[Chathamization]

10. There are still opportunities

Local politics tend not to have a direct impact on national security or international affairs, but they have a huge indirect affect. First and foremost, any kind of nationwide movement needs to have local bases. Without them, they just can't gain traction. When someone runs for president, their army comes from local party offices that have been active the whole time. But the left is sorely lacking in these institutions.

On a broader note as to whether or not voting is a charade, no, it's not, but it's the most basic thing you can do. You need to drink water to live, but if you binge on junk food and get zero exercise, you can't turn around and say, "man, drinking water is such a scam." Voting is something that needs to be done to keep us healthy politically, but if it's the only thing that's done, we're going to be bloated and sick.

You don't want to vote for Obama? I don't blame you. I never voted for the guy, and never will. There's a slew of candidates you can choose from. And if you don't like any, write yourself in. Why? If people stop voting the message that will be sent will be "we don't care, do what you like." If there's a large portion of people that show they care enough to vote but hate the people in office, the politicians will have incentives to placate these people for their own gain. And that's what moves politicians.

People need to do more. They need to not only vote, but go out, organize, get into their community, start working on long term goals. And that takes time. And it takes numbers. You might be doing it, but we need to get enough people doing it (maybe 1% of the population) in order to get the kind of society we want.

And you can get results. The healthcare bill might be a bit of a mess, but Vermonts on the path to single payer: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/03/08-11

Like with gay marriage, medical marijuana, and soon decriminalizing marijuana, once commons sense solutions like these catch on, they have a tendency to hold. All of this is going on at the local level, and all of these could make big differences. But they're going to need people to support them (which will also help to build strong leftwing networks).

So I agree with you. Fighting for establishment Dems is a waste of time. And I do think that protests against the NDAA have more potential than other protest movements. But, I think there's a ton of good work we could be doing at the ground level that will have national impact, and we seriously need good people lending a hand.

[Lysystrata]

12. A frightening and accurate assesment

The GOP's dedication to producing a permanent underclass is chilling. Ways of undermining this "regime" (for lack of a better word) should be fairly easy for people with hacking and freaking skills. A Geek Army?

[JNathanK]

9. The idea of posting here is to spread awareness on the issue so other people in other locals protest

My hopes are to use the internet as an organizing tool to find like minded people who could find common dates to hold rallies. If the Egyptians on their message board responded how you responded, there would have been no Arab Spring. My hopes are to find people who will say "that's a damn good idea", not," well why don't you go protest yourself. I'm not interested, but you should protest. Yah, just be a lone guy on the street holding up a cardboard sign". This isn't helpful.

[rlabston]

11. Isn't it a little late?

Seems like we should have been protesting BEFORE passage.

Along this line of thinking, we can complain, protest, try to make a lot of noise to impact future laws like NDAA, but we won't really see any fruit from these efforts until we organize ourselves to speak loudly with one voice. By loudly, I mean hit 'em where it hurts with major impact - in their wallets. Imagine an organization of 1 million people who all on the same day stopped shopping at Walmart or withdrew their money from a big national bank and moved that money to a single credit union.

[Lysystrata]

13. How much grease will the squeaky wheel need?

I wholeheartedly agree. I think online boycotts would send a message, and if it could be coupled with a "Buy Nothing" day it might get some attention. I know such things have been organized before, but how to access? No se. I know how to make a petition, but not how to make an organized demonstration.

If we had sympathetic techies working on it, we could disrupt certain net feeds and cause big business havoc. China has already demonstrated it's ability to divert US net traffic to their own servers. If they can do it, then we'd probably better do it too and pretty quick.

How do you go about gathering like-minded technical people?

[rDigital]

14. I don't understand

why anyone would ever support NDAA. The .gov has enough powers already.

When you think about laws like this and the power that they give.... think about that power in the hands of a politician that has values that are the complete polar opposite yours. This is a good litmus test for any proposed new .gov power.

[BrendaBrick]

15. Cross-posting a recent thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021113665

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/12425-group-plans-protest-against-ndaa

http://www.peopleagainstndaa.com/about.html

[Fire Walk With Me]

16. Indefinite detention is coming to town.

OccupyLA, last year.

[jb14621]

17. Maybe..

I'm torn on this one. There is a clear statement Sec 1021 which can go for us or against us; but, MI Senator Levin has stated emphatically that it is NOT intended for use against us. That said; however....I truly believe that any/all activities that destroy public property and/or citizens of our country MUST be identified as an Act of Terrorism. When someone takes an AK-47 to a shopping mall and kills as many as he can....they are a terrorist. When someone blows up a bldg - federal or not - they are a Terrorist. We need to send a Strong message to those that would usurp our country with violence. NO??