I am surprised that I am seeing very little conversation in OWC or anywhere about the National Defense Authorization Act that congress just passed and Obama seems prepared to sign into law.  It apparently gives the government, including the military, simply on the basis of suspicion the authority (and may, in fact require them) to take into custody anyone they believe may be associate,d with Al Quaeda, the Taliban or "associated groups and hold them indefinitely.  It also gives them the power to turn these people over to foreign governments (rendition). Based on our experience with the attorney general's list in the 60's, this could easily be stretched to include most people associated with OWC.

There seems to be little discussion of this anywhere including within the OWC community.  Why is this horrendous act of Congress getting so little comment?  What do other people on this list think about this?

--Kenoli 

Views: 17

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Here is a link to a Mother Jones article on this subject:

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/did-congress-just-endorse-r...

I agree, Kenoli.  The lack of response across the board is a bit mysterious.  It's been so effectively blacked out by corporate media that people I assume would know about the NDAA clauses, have no clue.  I'm also surprised MoveOn hasn't ignited it's usual storm of coverage and action.  I see a fairly strategic and tactical timing on the part of pro-NDAA sources to first clearing encampments; waiting a couple of beats for #Occupy momentum and attention to flag; creating some media diversion with "withdrawal" from Iraq and giving people their tax break, etc., etc.; while propping up Obama as some kind of hero for the people while he is much more Wall St.'s hero. 

I think there's still a little bit of shock and confusion re: the source of the indefinite detention language.  Up til a week and a half a go, we actually believed that Obama was prepared to veto the NDAA, that is until Levin dropped the bomb saying the indefinite detention clauses came from the White House and therefore making the likelihood of an Obama veto slim to none.  I think a lot of people who have been thinking Obama is pro we, the people, are a bit disoriented.

Having recognized what is actually happening through untinted glasses, the challenge seems, as always, to assess the most effective actions from here to dissuade Obama from signing the indefinite detention version of the NDAA. Would mass protest be enough? Can we pull it off in such a short time frame?

RSS

Weekly Cafe Calls

Regular Calls are no longer being held.  Below is the schedule that was maintained from the Fall of 2011 through Jan 10, 2013.

Mondays
"Vital Conversations" 

8-10a PDT | 11a-1p EDT | 3-5p GMT 

Tuesdays (except 10/16)
"Connect 2012"

1-3p PDT | 4-6p EDT | 8-10p GMT


Thursdays
"Occupy Heart" 

3-5p PDT | 6-8p EDT | 10p-12a GMT

Latest Activity

Janos Abel gave a gift to Henk Luth
Oct 13
Janos Abel commented on Occupy Cafe Stewards's page Feedback
"Is this web site still functioning?"
Oct 12
Paul Haider posted a status
"My inspiration is the possibility of a woman being elected as President of the United States in 2016, and this event is long overdue."
May 19
Eli J Levine is now a member of Occupy Cafe
Mar 21

Blog Posts

New Economy Conference

Posted by Aria Littlhous on October 2, 2013 at 5:49am 0 Comments

The Reconomy Global Timebank

Posted by Kevin Parcell on September 11, 2013 at 12:56pm 0 Comments

Syria Protest

Posted by Aria Littlhous on September 6, 2013 at 1:06pm 0 Comments

S17 Urgent need for research help

Posted by Aria Littlhous on September 5, 2013 at 8:20am 0 Comments

Photos

  • Add Photos
  • View All

© 2014   Created by Occupy Cafe Stewards.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service