Senate Passes Controversial Defense Bill

Must-read article on the bill by the great Glenn Greenwald. Key passage:

There are several very revealing aspects to all of this. First, the 9/11 attack happened more than a decade ago; Osama bin Laden is dead; the U.S. Government claims it has killed virtually all of Al Qaeda’s leadership and the group is “operationally ineffective” in the Afghan-Pakistan region; and many commentators insisted that these developments would mean that the War on Terror would finally begin to recede. And yet here we have the Congress, on a fully bipartisan basis, acting not only to re-affirm the war but to expand it even further: by formally declaring that the entire world (including the U.S.) is a battlefield and the war will essentially go on forever.

Indeed, it seems clear that they are doing this precisely out of fear that the justifications they have long given for the War no longer exist and there is therefore a risk Americans will clamor for its end. This is Congress declaring: the War is more vibrant than ever and must be expanded further. For our political class and the private-sector that owns it, the War on Terror — Endless War — is an addiction: it is not a means to an end but the end itself (indeed, 2/3 of these war addicts in the Senate just rejected Rand Paul’s bill to repeal the 2003 Iraq AUMF even as they insist that the Iraq War has ended). This is the war-hungry U.S. Congress acting preemptively to ensure that there is no sense in the citizenry that the War on Terror — and especially all of the vast new powers it spawned — can start to wind down, let alone be reversed.

He goes on to note how typically bipartisan this bill was (the Democrats using their tried-and-true "Villain Rotation" technique), but also how it merely codifies into law powers that the executive branch has long claimed for itself in the name of "fighting terrorism".
 
I figured this needed it's own thread, but I guess if a mod wanted to, it could go in the Acts of Terrorism thread.

This bill scares me more than The Patriot Act. Giving the military the legal ability to lock up essentially, anyone, and hold them without trial, or even charging them!!!

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10023-senate-passes-controversial-defense-bill

This bill doesn't give the military any more power than it already had from the Joint Resolution Authorizing the Use of Military Force in the war on terror (which has bee public law since 2003). The National Defense Authorization Act only acknowledges that the military had that power and indicates who is covered under that law. The Act limits those that can be detained as those who have planned, authorized, committed or harbored those responsible for the September 11th terror attacks, or was part of or substantially supported Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States. The persons who fall under that category are subject to the Law of War and may be detained until the end of hostilities as prescribed by the Authorization of the Use of Military Force.

As far as Al Qaeda leadership or the lack there of, it does not mean nor necessitate that the organization is dead. It is still alive although severely disrupted. Furthermore, no one in the U.S. government has formally said that the War on Terror will go on for ever.
 
As far as Al Qaeda leadership or the lack there of, it does not mean nor necessitate that the organization is dead. It is still alive although severely disrupted. Furthermore, no one in the U.S. government has formally said that the War on Terror will go on for ever.

Actually, that's basically what they're doing with this bill - covering their asses legally so that the war can go on basically forever. It broadens the terms of the 2001 AUMF so that the whole world is perceived as a battlefield, it enshrines indefinite detention without charges...and all this when even U.S. government sources say Al-Qaeda has been all but destroyed.

Insert obligatory Orwell reference to Endless War here.
 
Actually, that's basically what they're doing with this bill - covering their asses legally so that the war can go on basically forever. It broadens the terms of the 2001 AUMF so that the whole world is perceived as a battlefield, it enshrines indefinite detention without charges...and all this when even U.S. government sources say Al-Qaeda has been all but destroyed.

Insert obligatory Orwell reference to Endless War here.

I will not argue with the fact that they are covering themselves with legislation, but as far as perpetuating the war indefinitely, that is not likely. The AUMF gave the president the authority to use the U.S. Armed Forces against those who were responsible for the attracts on 9/11. This was general enough in itself to mean all over the world. The National Defense Authorization Act just acknowledge the fact that the president had such authority from the AUMF and clarified who could be detained and for how long. If does not perpetuate war. Just keep in mind that Congress still maintains the power to fund and underfund the war. This will go on until someone surrenders. The real likely end game should be that this whole thing turns into a law enforcement action with the military out of the picture.
 
I will not argue with the fact that they are covering themselves with legislation, but as far as perpetuating the war indefinitely, that is not likely. The AUMF gave the president the authority to use the U.S. Armed Forces against those who were responsible for the attracts on 9/11. This was general enough in itself to mean all over the world. The National Defense Authorization Act just acknowledge the fact that the president had such authority from the AUMF and clarified who could be detained and for how long. If does not perpetuate war.

Oh, come on. At the same time that bin Laden has been killed and al-Qaeda is described even by the U.S. government as "operationally ineffective", they're expanding the opportunities for war? The only reason the wars won't go indefinitely is because the U.S. is going to spend itself into oblivion by trying to maintain a globe-straddling empire of military bases, with more weapons and equipment than it knows what to do with, while fighting wars in six different countries. One of the reasons the USSR collapsed is because the military was gobbling up way too high a share of the budget and in the end that was unsustainable. The U.S. is an incomparably richer country, but even it has its limits, as we will see in the years to come.

The new bill does not grapple with this reality at all, but instead sets in place a legal framework by which these wars can continue (and be justified) indefinitely. In my book, that perpetuates war.

Just keep in mind that Congress still maintains the power to fund and underfund the war.

Theoretically. But what are the chances of that happening? Congress is addicted to war, and more specifically to campaign contributions from weapons contractors. Eisenhower's original phrase was supposed to be the "military-industrial-Congressional complex", but he changed it to "military-industrial complex" to avoid offending legislators. Nevertheless, the original shows better the so-called Iron Triangle, by which members of Congress get money for lavishing funds on the military, the "defense" companies are awarded fat and lucrative contracts, and the Pentagon sees its power and might endlessly extended.

Congress will never underfund the wars. Right now they're busy cutting vital social services the American people rely on, closing hospitals and libraries, aiming to cut Social Security and Medicare...all so they can keep funding this grotesquely bloated, destructive (and counter-productive) imperial military.

Why do I say counter-productive? Bombing, invading and occupying other people's countries is not a great way to combat terrorism. Instead, it's far more likely to infuriate its victims and increase terrorism - which, coincidentally, means the wars keep going and each party in the Iron Triangle stays fat and happy.

As Lenin said in response to the pacifists: "War is a 'terrible' thing? Yes - terribly profitable."

This will go on until someone surrenders.

Not going to happen. This is the problem with the whole "We're at War!" mentality. Terrorist groups are not national armies (as you basically acknowledged in your next sentence). They don't need to surrender. In fact, they're a lot like HYDRA from Captain America: The First Avenger - "cut off one head, two more shall take its place." Especially when the U.S. keeps creating new enemies for itself through its aggressive and violent actions.

The real likely end game should be that this whole thing turns into a law enforcement action with the military out of the picture.

Should be, and probably will eventually. But we're so far from that right now. The problem is that ever since 9/11, we've had this mentality that this is a war. Looking at it as a war helps keep the military well-funded. In the end, like most aspects of American politics, this is all about money.

The weird thing is, the neocons and terrorists are actually perfect mirror images of each other in this regard. Neoconservative dogma (now diffused through the rest of the culture, thanks to the warmongering Democrats) holds that members of Al-Qaeda are not mere criminals, but soldiers in a war. Ironically, this is how the members of Al-Qaeda also view themselves. Being portrayed as a solder with a cause is far more ennobling than being seen as a mere criminal.

Thus, the whole war mentality merely legitimizes members of Al-Qaeda and makes them seem like more than what they are - criminals. As you point out, the proper avenue for dealing with these types should be law enforcement, not the military. But unfortunately, that's not how our heroic leaders see it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"