I haven't read much of chris hedges and kudos to him for this but if I'm not mistaken, the outrage here (and echoed by santorum in the clip) seems to be that the indefinite detention of *American citizens* is now codified into law, almost making it feel like many critics of the NDAA bill would be ok with it if it applied only to *non-citizens*. Please correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the 5th amendment (and most of the constitution for that matter) protect the rights of all persons, regardless of citizenship?
That is absolutely correct. Rights are universally protected by the Bill of Rights, despite the enumeration of some of them. Certain privileges are granted to citizens in the Constitution, but rights are innumerable and unlimited and belong to all, regardless of citizenship, as recognized by the Ninth Amendment.
I strongly agree with the vast majority if what Chris has said and written. If you want to know what this intelligent and eloquent man thinks, watch this:
Book Talk in Depth: Chris Hedges
Go Chris Hedges!!! Free Ghassan Al Sharbi!
This lawsuit by Chris Hedges is doing exactly what I believe Obama wanted it to do. Challenge the law’s legality in the courts. I believe he set it up to lose in court.
People who are just determined to dislike, mistrust and criticize every single thing President Obama does, of course will assume the worse. That he has some nefarious plot to sell them out to the evil forces of the world, etc.
I believe his back was up against the wall with this. Congress was going to pass it, with or without him. He agreed to sign it in return for planting legal bombs in it that I feel certain will cause it to be struck down in court.
The House of Representatives voted to pass the NDAA 2012 with 283 (65%) voting yes and 136 (31%) voting no. 14 (3%) didn’t vote.
The Senate voted to pass it with 86 (86%) voting yes and 13 (13%) voting no. 1 (1%) Senator did not vote.
I am just guessing that the 8 Republicans – including Michele Bachmann – that didn’t vote the last time would have joined their colleagues in the House to make up the two thirds majority needed to hand President Obama an embarrassing defeat with an override of his veto in this election year. There’s no question that there was more than the required number to override a veto in the Senate. It would have been a futile act of symbolism to veto it.
The veto of this bill, which primarily funds the entire Armed Forces, would cause a delay, during which troops in Afghanistan would not be paid, jets would be grounded for lack of fuel, the Pentagon couldn’t pay its heating bill and thousands of shipbuilders and other workers employed by contractors with the military would be laid off. He doesn’t have line item veto power so he couldn’t just veto the part he didn’t like.
President Obama would have begun his reelection year with Republicans blaming him for “not paying our brave combat soldiers,” killing jobs, and being weak on defense. He knew he was going to catch hell for this decision, but he made a difficult choice. That’s why he made the signing statement. What other reason would he do that? The wording of it was part of the legal sabotage he placed in it to help assure that the courts would overturn it.
All the lefties who think he is just weak, immoral or corrupt are blinded by their one dimensional thinking. Why is it so hard to believe that this man is smarter than you?
“All the lefties who think he is just weak, immoral or corrupt are blinded by their one dimensional thinking. Why is it so hard to believe that this man is smarter than you?”
Can’t put all cats in the same bag. Maybe Obama is smarter than you, no doubt he has you mesmerized, but smarter than ALL Americans? Not even individually, let alone collectively.
Obama is a tool of the empire, and he has played his role to perfection. To expand, the empire needs more repression at home, to suppress any dissent caused by the criminal foreign policy Obama has continued where Bush II left it.
Comments are closed.