NDAA 2012: Is this the beginning of the end?

[R_P_A_S]

The forum was down for a while. I been looking around and I can't find anything about this VERY troubling bill that's going to be added to the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 (NDAA)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year _2012

For years we been hearing the conspiracy theorist talking about "martial law" and more recently the "FEMA camps". The patriot act I believe was the first ever big step by the government to start cutting our civil liberties. The way the police and state authorities have been dealing with the Occupy protestors has also been excessive, even sometimes ridiculous how violent and humiliating the repression has been.

Now we have this bill being added to this National Defense Authorization Act... Please read it if you are not familiar. Did you guys know that stuff like, missing a finger or having more than 7 days worth of food in your fridge makes you a terror suspect? SERIOUSLY!?!!

What about this other new law? Something with Internet control or privacy? It will "squash descent".. SORRY I don't know much about it.. I can't find any link.. I forgot details.. if anyone has them please post!

What do you guys think will happen? OBAMA said that he won't veto this. What road are we headed towards? I hate to believe all the crazy talk from the conspiracy theorist but these are words that are in these bills and laws getting approved by the US govt. So WTF?

[R_P_A_S]

48 vies and nobody has any discussion to add to this very controversial issue?

[Franz Fanonipants]

only liberals flip out when "rights" get "reduced."

e: the fact that conspiracy theorists, the most reactionary voices you'll hear in public american discourse, are scared of this is exactly why you can stamp a huge disregard on this.

[R_P_A_S]

only liberals flip out when "rights" get "reduced."

e: the fact that conspiracy theorists, the most reactionary voices you'll hear in public american discourse, are scared of this is exactly why you can stamp a huge disregard on this.

right. I understand this. However have you read the language of this thing? Have you look into it beyond what the "conspiracy theorist" and "liberals" are saying? After reading the bill and understanding it for what it really is.. Basically they can now just say anyone is a terrorist and hold you indefinitely... You don't believe that this can apply to peaceful protestors etc.?

revolutionaries shouldn't be concern with this because only "liberals" freak out about getting "liberties reduced?" I mean that just doesn't excuse the fact of the matter. I personally find it troubling. I live in this country and I'm always out protesting discrimination, racism, inequality and injustice.. I can't help it but to think that this is an attack on me also.. even if i'm not a terrorist nor do I associate with them.

[OHumanista]

Once again I have to strongly disagree with Franz.
It DOES matter, especially if you're the one who is gonna have miserable prospects because of this.
BUT I doubt there is much to do while the US is still a Republican-Democrat playground and a corporate society. So best thing to do is work on raising awareness of such acts amongst the population.

[R_P_A_S]

Personally I don't buy the FEMA camp B.S... I don't expect the US Govt. to one day just radically apply martial law and start taking people out or imprison them like Children of Men or V for Vendetta.

But these provisions and new bills being added do make you think that in 10 years or so when we wake up we might not be living in the same place.

[Franz Fanonipants]

they can do it now, they could do it twenty years ago, and they did it historically.

comrades, do you seriously think this does anything but formalize what would happen to you if you managed to gather serious momentum for a communist movement? i mean really guys, this is only a legal legitimization of existing policy positions.

[Franz Fanonipants]

BUT I doubt there is much to do while the US is still a Republican-Democrat playground and a corporate society. So best thing to do is work on raising awareness of such acts amongst the population.

comrade all that does is make people really concerned w/legal rights and not w/material conditions. there is no cogent criticism of capitalism that can come from that.

[R_P_A_S]

comrade all that does is make people really concerned w/legal rights and not w/material conditions. there is no cogent criticism of capitalism that can come from that.

the sad thing that only a very very small percentage of the population are even aware of this shit. let alone know about it.. they are more informed or aware of the X Factory or Two and half men.

[Franz Fanonipants]

the sad thing that only a very very small percentage of the population are even aware of this shit. let alone know about it.. they are more informed or aware of the X Factory or Two and half men.

then talk to them about marxism. this shit just makes "libertarians" out of people. trust me.

[Yazman]

Make sure this discussion keeps on track and doesn't devolve to "lol omg conspiracies" type worthless posts. People often think shitposting is allowed when these sorts of political issues get posted but it isn't. The discussion in this thread has been good so far, so let's keep it that way :)

[R_P_A_S]

comrade all that does is make people really concerned w/legal rights and not w/material conditions. there is no cogent criticism of capitalism that can come from that.

I agree with this.. However this new NDAA bill is being widely discussed with people who are either part of the Occupy movement or sympathizers. There are all kinds of people within the Occupy movement.

Conspiracy Theorist, Libertarians, Socialist, Anarchist, Communist and some just spiritual peeps not to concern with understanding material conditions. It's a mix pot.

I personally consider my self a revolutionary.. I hate to put a label on my politics.. but they are heavily influenced by Marxism. I know the "red flags" when I see them or hear them. But this bill for me.. it's troubling and that it might be signed into law by the president.

I'm not a liberal or libertarian.. but civil liberties also apply to me and I actually want to enjoy them and don't want them to be stripped away. I don't see a problem with being concerned about this..

[Franz Fanonipants]

civil liberties and etc. are just bourgeois privilege extended man. i'm not for detaining people or whatever, but you have to realize that burning ulcers over this shit is like burning ulcers over the 2012 election. its an okay timekiller, but there's nothing radical there. if occupy is making this a major issue, rather than child malnutrition, homelessness, poverty, etc. then idk

[~Spectre]

The forum was down for a while. I been looking around and I can't find anything about this VERY troubling bill that's going to be added to the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 (NDAA)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year _2012

For years we been hearing the conspiracy theorist talking about "martial law" and more recently the "FEMA camps". The patriot act I believe was the first ever big step by the government to start cutting our civil liberties. The way the police and state authorities have been dealing with the Occupy protestors has also been excessive, even sometimes ridiculous how violent and humiliating the repression has been.

Now we have this bill being added to this National Defense Authorization Act... Please read it if you are not familiar. Did you guys know that stuff like, missing a finger or having more than 7 days worth of food in your fridge makes you a terror suspect? SERIOUSLY!?!!

What about this other new law? Something with Internet control or privacy? It will "squash descent".. SORRY I don't know much about it.. I can't find any link.. I forgot details.. if anyone has them please post!

What do you guys think will happen? OBAMA said that he won't veto this. What road are we headed towards? I hate to believe all the crazy talk from the conspiracy theorist but these are words that are in these bills and laws getting approved by the US govt. So WTF?

Most of the powers codified by the NDAA bill are already claimed by the executive branch. Apparently part of the Obama administration's worry about NDAA was that even though it codifies it, the law might be slightly more restrictive since now there's some kind of framework, instead of just making it up as they go along.

Essentially it gives them something to point to when they do what they do. Remember, this administration has already claimed the legal power to assassinate U.S. citizens.

[~Spectre]

civil liberties and etc. are just bourgeois privilege extended man. i'm not for detaining people or whatever, but you have to realize that burning ulcers over this shit is like burning ulcers over the 2012 election. its an okay timekiller, but there's nothing radical there. if occupy is making this a major issue, rather than child malnutrition, homelessness, poverty, etc. then idk

Shut the fuck up.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Shut the fuck up.

feelings = crushed

[~Spectre]

feelings = crushed

Sorry, I shouldn't have yelled at you. I just felt like you already made the point, and repeating :"civil liberties and etc. are just bourgeois privilege extended man.", was more self-parody than productive.

People need to know exactly how their states work, even if it isn't a radical critique.

[Yazman]

Shut the fuck up.


feelings = crushed

I just told y'all to keep the discussion on track. There's no room for shitposting and if I see it again you're both infracted.

This is a warning.

Franz, you're on very thin ice here. You've got 5 current infractions as well as having been warned 2 weeks ago for spam and warned again today. You're on track for a ban with any more violations, so if I were you I would avoid breaking the rules anymore.

[~Spectre]

What about this other new law? Something with Internet control or privacy? It will "squash descent".. SORRY I don't know much about it.. I can't find any link.. I forgot details.. if anyone has them please post!


You're referring to SOPA.

In some ways, that one might be more pernicious. Essentially it's so broadly worded, that it could allow a company to call for the killswitch on sites like reddit and revleft if there's some use of copyrighted material.

[workersadvocate]

The crucial distinction to be made is not "they say this, so we believe the opposite". Instead, what matters is how we deal with the conditions based on our class forces and for our class interests.
What is the reactionary trying to say and get his audiance to do?
Isn't that quite different from how proletarian revolutionaries would confront these circumstances?

Of course the exploiter classes have a "by any means necessary" method.

[R_P_A_S]

civil liberties and etc. are just bourgeois privilege extended man. i'm not for detaining people or whatever, but you have to realize that burning ulcers over this shit is like burning ulcers over the 2012 election. its an okay timekiller, but there's nothing radical there. if occupy is making this a major issue, rather than child malnutrition, homelessness, poverty, etc. then idk

For the sake of not turning this into an Occupy debate I will just tell you that Occupy.. at least for Los Angeles.. can't speak for the others.. They do address homeless issues and poverty. We are actually very active with those two issues, among other things.

The NDAA is also an issue that it has become hard to ignore.. specially with the illegal detention of some peaceful protestors by the LAPD.. I guess it just has gotten more attention than others cus a lot of these peeps feel its only a matter of time before they use it on us.. activist, peaceful or militant.

[Red Commissar]

There's a real problem with this bill, notwithstanding the FEMA camp conspiracies and shit (which really only serve to make the attention on it look immature and therefore in correct). It's interesting seeing how Obama supporters have reacted to this so far. They seemed to think Obama was on their side when they expressed 'concern' over the bill- but it was over different reasons than what they thought he would do it over. Essentially White House was concerned that as it stood, it would be more effective to give the power to issue these orders to the President, rather than having it go through a number of security, intelligence, and defense areas along with him.

Though considering how people seemed to be quiet with PATRIOT Act, I'm not sure it really won't matter how much noise one makes. Most people feel assured that this is only to attack big bads like Awlaki and not be a potential area of abuse.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

For years we been hearing the conspiracy theorist talking about "martial law" and more recently the "FEMA camps".

Sorry, but FEMA camps conspiracy nonsense go back to the early 90's and before. Who thinks they would seriously give the incarceration of massive amounts of people to FEMA and not the DOD?

[R_P_A_S]

There's a real problem with this bill, notwithstanding the FEMA camp conspiracies and shit (which really only serve to make the attention on it look immature and therefore in correct). It's interesting seeing how Obama supporters have reacted to this so far. They seemed to think Obama was on their side when they expressed 'concern' over the bill- but it was over different reasons than what they thought he would do it over. Essentially White House was concerned that as it stood, it would be more effective to give the power to issue these orders to the President, rather than having it go through a number of security, intelligence, and defense areas along with him.

Though considering how people seemed to be quiet with PATRIOT Act, I'm not sure it really won't matter how much noise one makes. Most people feel assured that this is only to attack big bads like Awlaki and not be a potential area of abuse.

exactly.. the average citizen does not care because either they dont know about it.. and if they do know about it they don't feel it will ever effect them since they are not "terrorist".. however the whole thing about "missing fingers and having more than 7 days of food in your fridge" considers you a terror suspect??

[Threetune]

One thing communism understands is that no one has any ‘rights’. We are encouraged to think we have by capitalism in many ways and for a variety of historical reasons. However, refusing to carry on exposure of the reality of the capitalist dictatorship for fear of being associated with liberals and wacky conspiracy theories is short sighted in the extreme.

The entire anti-communist propaganda drive of ‘free market’ capitalism is bound up with the great myth of freedom, justice, liberty and habious corpus etc.
This gigantic ‘conspiracy’ that says the “armed bodies of men” and women, including the police of course, and the paraphernalia of the judiciary and prisons are under the control of our elected representatives who make law for the majority, rather than for the rich and powerful, needs exposing at every turn.

Why allow the various reformist trends make the running on this essential understanding about the role of the “state” as millions of workers are being driven into confrontation with that very state without any communist theoretical understanding yet. How the hell are those workers going to get any clarity if ‘revolutionaries’ are saying it’s not important?
Our state or their state is just the most important debate that can be had right now.

[RadioRaheem84]

How is this not something to be concerned about if it is the full legitimization of the already exisiting structure?

I agree with Franz that to make too much of a deal of it is to make libertarians out of people who would care more about rights than material conditions, but at the same time it is a way to help people understand the nature of the State in a capitalist society. Also, people do need to see just how much "rights" mean to a capitalist state when there is any instance of social unrest due to economic turmoil.

[Threetune]

I don’t think that the important matter of “material conditions” is as politically important as who has the POWER to decide on material conditions.
Them or us? Our power or theirs? Our state or theirs? Our armed bodies or theirs? Talk of “material conditions “without an explanation and full exposure of the vicious role of the state in preventing and rolling back the “material conditions “ is dangerous reformism.

[Firebrand]

Lets face it it was only a matter of time. I suppose they'll put something similar in place in the UK soon. The thing is that none of these laws make a blind bit of difference overall. It just makes it easier to justify themselves. If if you think they can't already imprison innocent people you've been taken for a ride.
This is the ruling class dusting off their weapons, they know trouble is coming and they're getting ready for it. The advantage we have is that their ultimate goal is not to destroy us but to control us. They can't exist without the masses but the masses can exist without them, that means they can never fully break our power. When the time comes it won't matter what rights to imprison us they have given themselves because it won't be their law any more it will be our law.

[R_P_A_S]

I guess I'm also wondering why revolutionaries rarely discuss these kind of issues more in depth. I understand the whole argument of Civil Liberties vs Material conditions.. However how are we supposed to work/fight to improve our material conditions if the state keeps on imposing new laws and criminalizing any type of dissidence?

[R_P_A_S]

would really appreciate more input on this.. thanks

[ckaihatsu]

Minneapolis protests detention without trial at Obama campaign headquarters

By Staff

Minneapolis, MN – More than 50 people jointed a Dec. 23 picket line here, at the Obama campaign headquarters, to demand the President veto the National Defense Authorization act, which contains provisions that allow indefinite detention without trial. The protest was organized by Occupy Minneapolis and local anti-war groups.

Critics of these provisions, which President Obama is expected to sign on Dec. 26, say the bill is a real threat to civil liberties and human rights. Several provisions in the NDAA give congressional authorization of indefinite military detentions without trial for people accused by the government of being terrorists. It codifies the powers claimed by both George Bush and Barak Obama based on the “2001 Authorization to Use Military Force” to declare people enemy combatants, indefinitely detain them without trial, gut habeas corpus and carry out assassinations.

Sam Richards of Occupy Minneapolis said, "The NDAA of 2012 is the largest assault on our rights since the Patriot Act. Obama ran as a champion of civil liberties, we are going to urge him to veto NDAA and protect our right to habeas corpus, among other things."

Jess Sundin of the Anti-War Committee and Committee to Stop FBI Repression said, "We are protesting this effort by Congress to give the president the right to lock American citizens up indefinitely without trial. It's a way of declaring people enemy combatants. We in the anti-war movement know firsthand how the government feels about those who disagree with them. This would give the government permission to not only investigate me for ‘supporting terrorism’ because of my activism, but to detain me based of accusation alone, lock me up and throw away the key. President Obama needs to do the right this and veto this now."

Sundin was one of the activists raided by the FBI last year and summoned to a Chicago Grand Jury investigating ‘material support for terrorism.’

Read more News and Views from the Peoples Struggle at http://www.fightbacknews.org. You can write to us at [email protected]

[Threetune]

I guess I'm also wondering why revolutionaries rarely discuss these kind of issues more in depth. I understand the whole argument of Civil Liberties vs Material conditions.. However how are we supposed to work/fight to improve our material conditions if the state keeps on imposing new laws and criminalizing any type of dissidence?

I’m not sure what you mean by “the whole argument of Civil Liberties vs Material conditions...”

“Civil Liberties” are part and parcel of “Material conditions”. The notional ‘right’ to have a say in affairs via elections and ‘free speech’ and ‘the rule of law’ claimed to apply equally to all, for example.

We can’t “work/fight” to improve material conditions if the economic and political conditions of capitalism in which we live, cannot afford our demands.

This is why I chose the particular Lenin quote as my signature below.

[R_P_A_S]

You're referring to SOPA.

In some ways, that one might be more pernicious. Essentially it's so broadly worded, that it could allow a company to call for the killswitch on sites like reddit and revleft if there's some use of copyrighted material.


Yes SOPA! I'll be honest... I haven't really read anything on this. Why aren't revolutionaries making a big deal about this or NDAA?

[R_P_A_S]

The main reason because liberals are the ones making a big deal out of it because they don't know how the system works (They think the constitution/bill of rights/etc was written for everyone but their actually written for the bourgeoisie the ones who control the means of production not the productive classes). The only ones who truly have civil rights under capitalism are the bourgeoisie themselves while the productive classes are treated accordingly.

Right.. I understand who it was written for. BUT the country has evolved a lot since 1776 wouldn't you say? I also understand that the system favors the elite. However there have been gains by the working class and also through the civil rights movement.

Regular people.. workers.. have won cases with the bill or rights and constitution backing them haven't they?

Perhaps it wasn't written by "the working class" but why can't we apply it to us too? It's not illegal.. is not forbidden. The language on the constitution and the bills seems to apply to all.

[R_P_A_S]

I also have to disagree with this argument that the bill of rights/constitution were written for and by the bourgeoisie/elite.. Didn't MLK, Malcolm X and The Black Panther Party all fought so that these rights could also be applied to them?

They all had a variation and methods.. yes. However I just don't feel that's an excuse to turn a blind eye to and dismiss it as just some "liberal" crap.

[ckaihatsu]

Right.. I understand who it was written for. BUT the country has evolved a lot since 1776 wouldn't you say? I also understand that the system favors the elite. However there have been gains by the working class and also through the civil rights movement.

Regular people.. workers.. have won cases with the bill or rights and constitution backing them haven't they?

Perhaps it wasn't written by "the working class" but why can't we apply it to us too? It's not illegal.. is not forbidden. The language on the constitution and the bills seems to apply to all.





I also have to disagree with this argument that the bill of rights/constitution were written for and by the bourgeoisie/elite.. Didn't MLK, Malcolm X and The Black Panther Party all fought so that these rights could also be applied to them?

They all had a variation and methods.. yes. However I just don't feel that's an excuse to turn a blind eye to and dismiss it as just some "liberal" crap.


I'll address these points here generally by saying that they are *all* liberalist arguments that can be neatly counterposed to the Hexen post you included:





The main reason because liberals are the ones making a big deal out of it because they don't know how the system works (They think the constitution/bill of rights/etc was written for everyone but their actually written for the bourgeoisie the ones who control the means of production not the productive classes). The only ones who truly have civil rights under capitalism are the bourgeoisie themselves while the productive classes are treated accordingly.





Right.. I understand who it was written for. BUT the country has evolved a lot since 1776 wouldn't you say?


If we take the major-yardstick index of wealth distribution into consideration, the ratio between the average working-class wage and the average CEO income has only *widened tremendously* since past times. Since the Enlightenment philosophy of value centers around monetary valuations, it is difficult to imagine any kind of political calculus that can validly *ignore* the impact of wealth on political power.

Today's productive class -- meaning non-financial labor power -- tends to be composed solidly of poorer, working-class people, immigrants, youth, social minorities, the dispossessed, non-property-owners. If the right to land (wealth) ownership is not such a big deal then why wasn't it allocated to everyone as part of the Constitution's "base package", along with the provisions of government that it details -- ?

All of the items of the Constitution and Bill of Rights are *bourgeois*, meaning that they itemize the "rules of game" for those who have *vested interests* in the system / social "game" that it serves to provide for in general -- basically wealth management.

'Civil rights' has absolutely no meaning in a context where one lives today in factory dormitories among warehoused thousands, working endless shifts in a gray existence.





I also understand that the system favors the elite. However there have been gains by the working class and also through the civil rights movement.

Regular people.. workers.. have won cases with the bill or rights and constitution backing them haven't they?

Perhaps it wasn't written by "the working class" but why can't we apply it to us too? It's not illegal.. is not forbidden. The language on the constitution and the bills seems to apply to all.


Any and all involvement in bougeois machinations only yields results -- or doesn't -- within the context of that system itself *only*, by definition. So if the constitution is amended to give women the right to vote, for example, that only has to do with the issue of how the bourgeois system chooses its own representatives. It does *not* speak to the concrete issues that are relevant to the *productive* class -- of ending witchhunts, enacting wage increases, better working conditions, benefits, cost of living allowances, etc.





They all had a variation and methods.. yes. However I just don't feel that's an excuse to turn a blind eye to and dismiss it as just some "liberal" crap.


The reason why revolutionaries can rightly deride such civil-reformist methods as "just some liberal crap" is because such tinkering with the machinery of the system is *not* progressive -- its historical moment is past and the world has already since developed to where matters of "civil rights" -- the definition of citizenship in a culturally diverse nation -- are now overshadowed by the more contemporary matter of mass labor organization to tackle the issue of valuation in an era of crashing global financial capitalism and hegemonic imperialism.

[ckaihatsu]

http://wsws.org/articles/2011/dec2011/ndaa-d27.shtml


The Nation and the National Defense Authorization Act


By Tom Carter and Barry Grey

27 December 2011

A comment by Robert Scheer published December 15 on the Nation magazine’s web site dealing with the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) demonstrates that the left-liberal layers for whom the magazine speaks are neither willing nor able to carry out a principled defense of democratic rights.

The NDAA was passed by both houses of the US legislature earlier this month and now awaits only President Obama’s signature before it becomes the law of the land. The NDAA has immense historic significance. It effectively abolishes the Bill of Rights and 220 years of precedent, expressly giving the US military the power to abduct and imprison any person anywhere in the world—US citizen or otherwise—on suspicion of a terror-related crime, without charge, jury, evidence, or trial.

[...]

[ckaihatsu]

Obama signs NDAA, allows for indefinite detention without trial

By Staff

Washington, DC – President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA), which includes provisions that allow for indefinite military detention without trial, on Dec.31. The timing of signing assured limited coverage by the corporate media.

Civil liberties organizations, including the Committee to Stop FBI Repression, had urged Obama to veto the NDAA.

A statement from the Committee to Stop FBI Repression noted, “We need to do everything in our power to push back against repression. Under the guise of preventing ‘terrorism’ our democratic rights are being taken away. We have seen this in the case of the 24 anti-war and international solidarity activists who were raided by the FBI and/or called to the grand jury investigating ‘material support for Foreign Terrorist Organizations.’ We have seen this in the prosecution of veteran Chicano activist Carlos Montes in Los Angeles.”

The NDAA, like laws that pertain to the ‘material support for terrorism’ are anti-democratic.

A statement from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) points out, “Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again. The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA.”


Read more News and Views from the Peoples Struggle at http://www.fightbacknews.org. You can write to us at [email protected]






Sent to [email protected] — why did I get this?
unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences
Fight Back! News · P.O. Box 582564 · Minneapolis, MN 55440

[R_P_A_S]

I've been meaning to come back to this topic and reply to you ckaihatsu.
Mainly with more questions. But I enjoy this sort of discussion.

[Grenzer]

Couldn't you have just sent him a PM instead of necroing a nearly one year old topic?