(no subject)
Dec. 15th, 2011 10:38 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nonionayAll right, I'm going to rant about it: the NDAA. So lots of people have been fussing about this thing, but for whatever reason, I'm not seeing a lot of that occurring in mainstream media. Now, having read the actual text of the sections under concern, I'm really not sure what to think. On the one hand, it looks like things are staying pretty much the same (which in itself sucks, but whatever). But it's also...vague. On the one hand, we have sections clearly stating that the detaining without trial provisions don't apply to American citizens and legal aliens. But there's also the whole, "The Secretary of Defense can suspend the requirements of paragraph one for national security," thing. What does paragraph one say?
"(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."
So what gets waived? The power of the Armed Forces? the description of people as defined in paragraph 2? (Which basically says, al-Qaeda and people, presumably non-citizens, who are mean to America). But, the next section does state unequivocally that none of this applies to American citizens. [EDIT: One thing I just saw says that it's the military bit which gets waived, and that if the president wants, a Person-Defined-in-Paragraph-2 can instead be held by civilian powers. I guess that makes sense.]
Basically, it looks like business as usual, but I'm frankly distressed by the lack of response from the government. It's true, I don't watch tv, so maybe it's getting more press there, but my corner of the internet is flipping the fuck out, and with a distinct lack of soothing coming from the higher ups, the panic is contagious.
But even if this bill does just preserve the status quo, I'm frankly sick of the status quo. I've been reading about FDR lately, and he did some pretty wretched stuff (one of his first acts as president was to cut benefits to veterans), but at least he did something.
Ugh. I'm glad tomorrow's Friday.
"(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."
So what gets waived? The power of the Armed Forces? the description of people as defined in paragraph 2? (Which basically says, al-Qaeda and people, presumably non-citizens, who are mean to America). But, the next section does state unequivocally that none of this applies to American citizens. [EDIT: One thing I just saw says that it's the military bit which gets waived, and that if the president wants, a Person-Defined-in-Paragraph-2 can instead be held by civilian powers. I guess that makes sense.]
Basically, it looks like business as usual, but I'm frankly distressed by the lack of response from the government. It's true, I don't watch tv, so maybe it's getting more press there, but my corner of the internet is flipping the fuck out, and with a distinct lack of soothing coming from the higher ups, the panic is contagious.
But even if this bill does just preserve the status quo, I'm frankly sick of the status quo. I've been reading about FDR lately, and he did some pretty wretched stuff (one of his first acts as president was to cut benefits to veterans), but at least he did something.
Ugh. I'm glad tomorrow's Friday.
