[Peace-discuss] Fwd: Still angry about the NDAA?

[C. G. Estabrook]

I think the matter is somewhat more complicated - but no more  
creditable for the administration.

The administration feared that the NDAA's involvement of the military  
would recognize the rights of accused terrorists under the Geneva  
conventions - which the Bush/Obama administrations worked hard to avoid.

Obama had already claimed vast unconstitutional powers - based on the  
weak reed of the first AUMF - and he feared the NDAA would interfere  
with them!


--CGE


Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Laura W. Murphy, ACLU" <aclu at aclu.org>
> Date: February 27, 2012 11:40:26 AM CST
> To: carl at newsfromneptune.com
> Subject: Still angry about the NDAA?
> Reply-To: "Laura W. Murphy, ACLU" <aclu at aclu.org>
>
>
> Dear ACLU Supporter,
>
> Tell your members of Congress to fight back against indefinite  
> military detention without charge or trial.
>
>
> (Do not forward: This link will open a page with your information  
> already filled in.)
> Are you still angry about the National Defense Authorization Act  
> (NDAA)? Good. You should be.
>
> As you may recall, in December, Congress passed a statute  
> authorizing this president and all future presidents to use the  
> military to indefinitely detain people located far from any  
> battlefield — without charge or trial — based on suspicion alone.
>
> Tens of thousands of ACLU supporters took action against this  
> outrageous statute and pledged to fight it once it became law. And  
> we have a chance to start to do so on Wednesday when the Senate  
> Judiciary Committee holds its first public hearing on the problems  
> caused by the NDAA.
>
> Write your members of Congress urging them to take a public pledge  
> to fight back against indefinite military detention without charge  
> or trial. (Do not forward: This link will open a page with your  
> information already filled in.)
>
> When the Senate Armed Services Committee wrote the NDAA last year in  
> secret, closed-door sessions, it included dangerous provisions that  
> gave the president authority to send the American military anywhere  
> in the world to imprison people, even in countries where there is no  
> armed conflict and no threat to Americans.
>
> Congress even rejected amendments clarifying that the NDAA does not  
> permit indefinite military detention of civilians here in the United  
> States.
>
> But the Senate is taking a step to fix all of this. We have to make  
> the most of it. And right now, that means your senators need to hear  
> from you — they need to know you reject this perversion of justice  
> and you won't stand for worldwide indefinite military detention  
> without charge or trial.
>
> Write your members of Congress and urge them to pledge to fight back  
> against worldwide indefinite military detention without charge or  
> trial.
>
> Let's be clear. Congress needs a new bill — one that cuts off  
> indefinite military detention power. Although some well-intentioned  
> bills have been introduced, none of them yet fix the problems.
>
> In order to protect the values of freedom and justice, we have to  
> fix the NDAA. And that means we have to act quickly and decisively  
> to let Congress know we reject indefinite military detention before  
> this crucial hearing on Wednesday.
>
>
> Thank you for taking a stand,
>
>
> Laura W. Murphy
> Director, Washington Legislative Office
>
> P.S. We hope you'll watch Wednesday's hearing. It will be broadcast  
> live on the Senate Judiciary Committee's website.
> Spread the Word
> Help by sharing this campaign with friends.
>
> © ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10004
>
> DO NOT FORWARD: Your information is linked to this email.