Share 0 Tweet 0 Share Email Print 0 Shares

Received via email: I noticed some serious discrepancies between the NDAA as written and the understanding at large surrounding it, as well as widespread gross misunderstandings of events that have transpired in relation to it, such as the Feinstein amendment, widely assumed to reign in its power. Moreover, by using obfuscatory language in the official Whitehouse Statement and playing a verbal shell game with sections 1031 and 1032, the Administration has given the convenient and clever appearance of opposing the offensive provision, which has had the effect of lulling journalists and the public into complacent ignorance which may explain the virtual mainstream media blackout on this issue. The C-SPAN video clip of Levin belies this apparently engineered misperception.

Change.org petition (click on the “About This Petition Tab” to see his explanation of the issues)





YouTube video with C-SPAN clip

Whitehouse.gov petition



Statement of Administration Policy on NDAA

Text of NDAA (S 1867)

Helpful/entertaining quick overview of NDAA issues: 20 Things You Should Know About the Bill that Could Ruin America

2 articles referring to tricky language (paragraph 5 of both articles)

http://communities. washingtontimes.com/ neighborhood/omkara/2011/nov/ 30/obama-calls- unconstitutional-indefinite- detention-/

http://www.oswegonian.com/ opinion/5554/ndaa-sneakily- steals-rights/

Articles referring to media blackout with additional helpful links about NDAA

http://articles. businessinsider.com/2011-12- 07/politics/30489421_1_senate- floor-link-media-blackout

http://www.businessinsider. com/the-medias-blackout-of- the-national-defense- authorization-act-is-shameful- 2011-12

Due to the complexities of the issue and parlor tricks being used, unfortunately most journalists appear to fallen for the trap as intended, writing up articles that propagate serious misinformation including that Obama plans to veto the bill expressly to preserve citizens’ rights. While it’s possible he could veto the bill, my understanding is that the actual reason he would do so is that the bill does not go far enough in granting executive power. See these links if interested in reading more on this: http://www.sott.net/articles/ show/238665-Why-Obama-Wants- to-Veto-S-1867

http://reason.com/archives/ 2011/12/07/obamas-indefinite- detention-powers . I’m not conversant in this area so cannot judge the sources in terms quality, reliability and validity of the links I’ve provided, unfortunately.

See Also:

Mini-Me: Senate Authorizing Military to Lock Up Anyone Anywhere – Including US Citizens – without due process, indefinitely