NINE WEEKS IN
Happy Holidays all, from all of us here at the Alaska Progressive Review. As you might already know, your lead editor has been recovering from my worst ever injury sustained nine weeks ago. Whilst running on our local trails.
As my broken leg has been healing, I've tried to keep up with the latest events regionally, nationally, and globally, while still tending to the needs of our assistant editor Mattie, and research assistant Kluane. Great news was received 9 days ago during my last check-up from the orthopedic surgeon who installed the metal plate/screws to mend my fractured tibia. After looking at current x-rays and talking with my physical therapist, he authorised me to begin weight-bearing, two weeks earlier than at first suggested, 8 weeks previously. A two week reduction in my crutch sentence, what a relief! Now all our lives are getting back to normal, though it will still be a few months yet before I will be able to run or ski again. But my walking is increasing, as well as stationary biking, and I'll be able to use my mountain bike with studded tires on the local trails in a few weeks, when my leg is not quite so stiff.
We thought we'd show you some scenes of our local area, whilst I've been recovering. Just a few days previous, we walked back to the scene of the accident, where I jammed my leg into a hole, while running fast. Looking behind me, yet still running forward at about a 7:30 pace, thinking a brown bear was coming out of the woods. Here is where it occurred, right where Kluane is nestling. At that time, 18 October, there were just a few patches of snow on the ground, and it was -12C or so.
Here where Mattie is strolling, is about 1 km south of the injury site, where I stumbled into the woods, in great pain and desperation. I actually fell once on a downed log, and pondered just laying there. But then I saw my rescuers, the couple walking their black lab, who helped me out of there and to safety. We greatly look forward to seeing them again, to thank them, and to show that I am walking again.
It must be mentioned that during this time of my great desperation, Mattie was always by my side, whilst Kluane kept circling around, looking for help. I know that if I had passed out or become unable to move, they would have been able to attract attention from passers-by in the neighbourhood just about 100 metres away.
During my 8 week recovery, hobbling around on crutches, in the Chugach Front Research Centre, and during our short 30-60 min. hobbles on flat, even trails (though I did work up to a few 60-90 min. ones toward the end of my sentence), we were still able to get the exercise, fresh air, and inspiration from our natural surroundings that sustains us.
Here, at just three weeks in past my operation is how the leg looked, rather ghastly frankly. Still quite swollen and tender from knee all the way to the foot. The incision from the operation to install the metal support apparatus was healing. I had also sprained the ankle and entire foot during the injury, which turned out to be actually more painful during the entire recovery process. Nerve damage around my knee and tibia still keeps that area somewhat numb.
Fortunately during physical therapy, icing, massage, and stretching exercises greatly have helped my sprained foot/ankle, to the point now that they are almost returned to normal.
During the first month of my recovery, when I was in the greatest pain and im-mobility, you can see that the other staff of the A.P.R. were quite concerned, and always there for me. Helping me feel better with their kind and concerned presence.
The period from late October through almost all of November was quite dry in South-Central Alaska, with temperatures below average, thanks to a northerly offshore flow, due to a persistant high pressure ridge to our west, over the Bering Sea. Giving us beautiful sunrises and sunsets, as this one in mid-Nov. during one of our short outings. And also helping to keep my crutching around safer, with less snow and ice to contend with.
You can see looking out the window from the CFRC to the nearer ridges at 1200 metres elevation, just how little snow was present, less than 10 cm at this point in mid-November, well below-average.
By the time of my first steps off crutches, here 9 days ago, we had picked up over 20 cm of new snow, and the trails were in perfect shape for nordic skiing, which of course is one of your lead editor's favourite pursuits. But there will still be a few months left in the season, when my leg will have the strength/stability to resume this.
We wasted no time getting out onto further, narrower, steeper trails that I couldn't access earlier on crutches, over the past week. Here, below, the 2000+ metre peaks behind the valley of the South Fork of the Eagle River loom, with some blowing snow on the higher ridges.
This was the first place we went, as it is one of our favourites. It was -20C this day, with a slight breeze, and I was able to get in about 7 km of walking.
Whilst Kluane, now free to roam longer in the deeper snow, made the most of it, plunging through the stiff powder full speed, getting quite a workout.
On a longer walk the next day, about 8 km, up a local road that becomes the trail to Rabbit Lake, in Chugach State Park, we did run into some trouble. Kluane had charged well ahead and as he is often wont to do, was harrassing a moose, intending to herd it. Whilst I was unaware of this. All of a sudden as Mattie and I were ascending a curved, uphill stretch of the trail, a young bull moose came charging down at us, with Kluane behind. I only had time to dive into the alder shrubs on the side, before the moose charged through where I had been standing. Fortunately my landing was a soft one, and I didn't aggravate my still stiff left leg.
Kluane and I have had several conversations since concerning the unacceptability of this type of behaviour, imperiling all our safety, and he has been much better. Mattie also set upon him later that day, with her type of discipline, which I had to intervene in, as she can be somewhat harsh. During that hike though, on the gorgeously sunny day, the surrounding 1200-1600 metre ridges were shining in the low-angle near-Solstice sun, which we greatly enjoyed.
Soon we will be going on even longer hikes, in different areas, with some biking mixed in. The orthopedist and my physical therapist think that I will be able to resume running and nordic skiing in the future. Which brings great relief, as during the initial stages of this injury I had great uncertainty about that. So, all in all, nine weeks in to this injury, things are going quite well, and we are all hopeful that we'll be engaging in the pursuits we love, throughout this beautiful region in the coming months.
DOUBLE TROUBLE
There are two current events which are greatly troubling, to us at the Alaska Progressive Review, and which we have been thinking about a great deal lately.
First, were the tragic mass-murders at the Newtown, CT elementary school a few weeks, which sickened and repulsed us so greatly here at the A.P.R. that we had to deliberately shy away from reading/watching the incessant media coverage. Now that some time has passed, and many different voices have spoken out about why this tragedy occurred, we found Michael Moore's to be the most to our liking, and are in full agreement with it. This tragedy, like no other recently, shines a great light on the problems in U.S. society, given the background racism, excess militarism, and sociopathic greed-based behaviours of the ruling elite, which then erupt violently and unpredictably in ways such as the Newtown massacre. Give this a read, and see what you think.
Celebrating the Prince of Peace in the Land of Guns
After watching the deranged, delusional National Rifle Association press conference on Friday, it was clear that the Mayan prophecy had come true. Except the only world that was ending was the NRA's. Their bullying power to set gun policy in this country is over. The nation is repulsed by the massacre in Connecticut, and the signs are everywhere: a basketball coach at a post-game press conference; the Republican Joe Scarborough; a pawn shop owner in Florida; a gun buy-back program in New Jersey; a singing contest show on TV, and the conservative gun-owning judge who sentenced Jared Loughner.
So here's my little bit of holiday cheer for you:
These gun massacres aren't going to end any time soon.
I'm sorry to say this. But deep down we both know it's true. That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep pushing forward – after all, the momentum is on our side. I know all of us – including me – would love to see the president and Congress enact stronger gun laws. We need a ban on automatic AND semiautomatic weapons and magazine clips that hold more than 7 bullets. We need better background checks and more mental health services. We need to regulate the ammo, too.
But, friends, I would like to propose that while all of the above will certainly reduce gun deaths (ask Mayor Bloomberg – it is virtually impossible to buy a handgun in New York City and the result is the number of murders per year has gone from 2,200 to under 400), it won't really bring about an end to these mass slayings and it will not address the core problem we have. Connecticut had one of the strongest gun laws in the country. That did nothing to prevent the murders of 20 small children on December 14th.
In fact, let's be clear about Newtown: the killer had no criminal record so he would never have shown up on a background check. All of the guns he used were legally purchased. None fit the legal description of an "assault" weapon. The killer seemed to have mental problems and his mother had him seek help, but that was worthless. As for security measures, the Sandy Hook school was locked down and buttoned up BEFORE the killer showed up that morning. Drills had been held for just such an incident. A lot of good that did.
And here's the dirty little fact none of us liberals want to discuss: The killer only ceased his slaughter when he saw that cops were swarming onto the school grounds – i.e, the men with the guns. When he saw the guns a-coming, he stopped the bloodshed and killed himself. Guns on police officers prevented another 20 or 40 or 100 deaths from happening. Guns sometimes work. (Then again, there was an armed deputy sheriff at Columbine High School the day of that massacre and he couldn't/didn't stop it.)
I am sorry to offer this reality check on our much-needed march toward a bunch of well-intended, necessary – but ultimately, mostly cosmetic – changes to our gun laws. The sad facts are these: Other countries that have guns (like Canada, which has 7 million guns – mostly hunting guns – in their 12 million households) have a low murder rate. Kids in Japan watch the same violent movies and kids in Australia play the same violent video games (Grand Theft Auto was created by a British company; the UK had 58 gun murders last year in a nation of 63 million people). They simply don't kill each other at the rate that we do. Why is that? THAT is the question we should be exploring while we are banning and restricting guns: Who are we?
I'd like to try to answer that question.
We are a country whose leaders officially sanction and carry out acts of violence as a means to often an immoral end. We invade countries who didn't attack us. We're currently using drones in a half-dozen countries, often killing civilians.
This probably shouldn't come as a surprise to us as we are a nation founded on genocide and built on the backs of slaves. We slaughtered 600,000 of each other in a civil war. We "tamed the Wild West with a six-shooter," and we rape and beat and kill our women without mercy and at a staggering rate: every three hours a women is murdered in the USA (half the time by an ex or a current); every three minutes a woman is raped in the USA; and every 15 seconds a woman is beaten in the USA.
We belong to an illustrious group of nations that still have the death penalty (North Korea, Saudi Arabia, China, Iran). We think nothing of letting tens of thousands of our own citizens die each year because they are uninsured and thus don't see a doctor until it's too late.
Why do we do this? One theory is simply "because we can." There is a level of arrogance in the otherwise friendly American spirit, conning ourselves into believing there's something exceptional about us that separates us from all those "other" countries (there are indeed many good things about us; the same could also be said of Belgium, New Zealand, France, Germany, etc.). We think we're #1 in everything when the truth is our students are 17th in science and 25th in math, and we're 35th in life expectancy. We believe we have the greatest democracy but we have the lowest voting turnout of any western democracy. We're biggest and the bestest at everything and we demand and take what we want.
And sometimes we have to be violent m*****f*****s to get it. But if one of us goes off-message and shows the utterly psychotic nature and brutal results of violence in a Newtown or an Aurora or a Virginia Tech, then we get all "sad" and "our hearts go out to the families" and presidents promise to take "meaningful action." Well, maybe this president means it this time. He'd better. An angry mob of millions is not going to let this drop.
While we are discussing and demanding what to do, may I respectfully ask that we stop and take a look at what I believe are the three extenuating factors that may answer the question of why we Americans have more violence than most anyone else:
1. POVERTY. If there's one thing that separates us from the rest of the developed world, it's this. 50 million of our people live in poverty. One in five Americans goes hungry at some point during the year. The majority of those who aren't poor are living from paycheck to paycheck. There's no doubt this creates more crime. Middle class jobs prevent crime and violence. (If you don't believe that, ask yourself this: If your neighbor has a job and is making $50,000/year, what are the chances he's going to break into your home, shoot you and take your TV? Nil.)
2. FEAR/RACISM. We're an awfully fearful country considering that, unlike most nations, we've never been invaded. (No, 1812 wasn't an invasion. We started it.) Why on earth would we need 300 million guns in our homes? I get why the Russians might be a little spooked (over 20 million of them died in World War II). But what's our excuse? Worried that the Indians from the casino may go on the warpath? Concerned that the Canadians seem to be amassing too many Tim Horton's donut shops on both sides of the border?
No. It's because too many white people are afraid of black people. Period. The vast majority of the guns in the U.S. are sold to white people who live in the suburbs or the country. When we fantasize about being mugged or home invaded, what's the image of the perpetrator in our heads? Is it the freckled-face kid from down the street – or is it someone who is, if not black, at least poor?
I think it would be worth it to a) do our best to eradicate poverty and re-create the middle class we used to have, and b) stop promoting the image of the black man as the boogeyman out to hurt you. Calm down, white people, and put away your guns.
3. THE "ME" SOCIETY. I think it's the every-man-for-himself ethos of this country that has put us in this mess and I believe it's been our undoing. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps! You're not my problem! This is mine!
Clearly, we are no longer our brother's and sister's keeper. You get sick and can't afford the operation? Not my problem. The bank has foreclosed on your home? Not my problem. Can't afford to go to college? Not my problem.
And yet, it all sooner or later becomes our problem, doesn't it? Take away too many safety nets and everyone starts to feel the impact. Do you want to live in that kind of society, one where you will then have a legitimate reason to be in fear? I don't.
I'm not saying it's perfect anywhere else, but I have noticed, in my travels, that other civilized countries see a national benefit to taking care of each other. Free medical care, free or low-cost college, mental health help. And I wonder – why can't we do that? I think it's because in many other countries people see each other not as separate and alone but rather together, on the path of life, with each person existing as an integral part of the whole. And you help them when they're in need, not punish them because they've had some misfortune or bad break. I have to believe one of the reasons gun murders in other countries are so rare is because there's less of the lone wolf mentality amongst their citizens. Most are raised with a sense of connection, if not outright solidarity. And that makes it harder to kill one another.
Well, there's some food for thought as we head home for the holidays. Don't forget to say hi to your conservative brother-in-law for me. Even he will tell you that, if you can't nail a deer in three shots – and claim you need a clip of 30 rounds – you're not a hunter my friend, and you have no business owning a gun.
Have a wonderful Christmas or a beautiful December 25th!
Second, the other current event greatly troubling us here at the A.P.R. concerns the very real possibility that the US will formally be an overtly fascist police state, capable of rounding up and "disappearing" dissidents and other "undesirables" at any time of it's choosing. Politicians in the Obama administration, as well as in the Senate and House of Representatives, are actually supporting a measure, the National Defense Authorisation Act (NDAA), which contains a section, 1021(b)(2) authorising exactly that. The ability of the military to round up and detain indefinitely anyone of the governments choosing, without trial or any due recourse.
These politicians are all federal employees, who, upon entering their positions, must "solemnly swear to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Yet, what can be more unconstitutional than this NDAA detention authorisation? Please read the following article, describing the court battles of the plaintiffs, who are some of the most prominent peace and social justice advocates in this country; it is of paramount importance that all US citizens understand what is happening, and work to stop it. If this measure does survive the court battles and then begins to be used, no one will be safe. Many prominent scientists and intellectuals were able to see the writing on the wall in Germany in the 1930s, such as Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, and others, and fled to other European Countries and the US. It would be a shame if this then happens in the US, where all those who understand, feel compelled to flee to safer nations. We have our own contingency plans here at the A.P.R., just in case...
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/12/24
The Final Battle
Over the past year I and other plaintiffs including
Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg have pressed a lawsuit in the federal courts to
nullify Section 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
This egregious section, which permits the government to use the military to
detain U.S. citizens, strip them of due process and hold them indefinitely in
military detention centers, could have been easily fixed by Congress.
The Senate and House had the opportunity this month to include in the 2013 version of the NDAA an unequivocal statement that all U.S. citizens would be exempt from 1021(b)(2), leaving the section to apply only to foreigners. But restoring due process for citizens was something the Republicans and the Democrats, along with the White House, refused to do. The fate of some of our most basic and important rights—ones enshrined in the Bill of Rights as well as the Fourth and Fifth amendments of the Constitution—will be decided in the next few months in the courts. If the courts fail us, a gulag state will be cemented into place.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Mike Lee, R-Utah, pushed through the Senate an amendment to the 2013 version of the NDAA. The amendment, although deeply flawed, at least made a symbolic attempt to restore the right to due process and trial by jury. A House-Senate conference committee led by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., however, removed the amendment from the bill last week.
(Photo: AP/Alex Brandon)
“I was saddened and disappointed that we could not take a step forward to ensure at the very least American citizens and legal residents could not be held in detention without charge or trial,” Feinstein said in a statement issued by her office. “To me that was a no-brainer.”
The House approved the $633 billion NDAA for 2013 in a 315-107 vote late Thursday night. It will now go before the Senate. Several opponents of the NDAA in the House, including Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va., cited Congress’ refusal to guarantee due process and trial by jury to all citizens as his reason for voting against the bill. He wrote in a statement after the vote that “American citizens may fear being arrested and indefinitely detained by the military without knowing what they have done wrong.”
The Feinstein-Lee amendment was woefully inadequate. It was probably proposed mainly for its public relations value, but nonetheless it resisted the concerted assault on our rights and sought to calm nervous voters objecting to the destruction of the rule of law. The amendment failed to emphatically state that citizens could never be placed in military custody. Rather, it said citizens could not be placed in indefinite military custody without “trial.” But this could have been a trial by military tribunals. Citizens, under the amendment, could have been barred from receiving due process in a civil court. Still, it was better than nothing. And now we have nothing.
"Congressional moves concerning the NDAA make it clear that Congress as a whole has no stomach for the protection of civil liberties,” said attorney Bruce Afran, who along with attorney Carl Mayer has brought the lawsuit against President Obama in which we are attempting to block Section 1021(b)(2).
The only hero so far in this story is U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest of the Southern District Court of New York. Forrest in September accepted all of our challenges to the law. She issued a permanent injunction invalidating Section 1021(b)(2). Government lawyers asked Forrest for a “stay pending appeal”—meaning the law would go back into effect until the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a ruling in the case. She refused. The government then went directly to the Court of Appeals and asked it for a temporary stay while promising not to detain the plaintiffs or other U.S. citizens under the provision. The Court of Appeals, which will hear oral arguments in January, granted the government’s request for a temporary stay. The law went back into effect. If the Court of Appeals upholds Forrest’s ruling, the case will most likely be before the Supreme Court within weeks.
“President Obama should never have appealed this watershed civil rights ruling,” Mayer said. “But now that he has, the fight may well go all the way to the Supreme Court. At stake is whether America will slide more toward authoritarianism or whether the judicial branch of government will stem the decade-long erosion of our civil liberties. Since 9/11 Americans have been systematically stripped of their freedoms: Their phone calls are monitored under [George W.] Bush and Obama’s warrantless wiretapping program, they are videotaped relentlessly in public places, there are drones over American soil and the police control protesters and dissenters with paramilitary gear and tactics. As long as Obama and the leadership of both parties want the military to police our streets, we will fight. This is unacceptable, un-American and unconstitutional.”
Section 1021(b)(2) defines a “covered person”—one subject to detention—as “a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”
The section, however, does not define the terms
“substantially supported,” “directly supported” or “associated forces.” The
vagueness of the language means that the plaintiffs, including those who as
journalists have contact with individuals or groups deemed by the State
Department to be part of terrorist organizations, could along with others find
themselves seized and detained under the provision.
The corporate state knows that the steady
deterioration of the economy and the increasingly savage effects of climate
change will create widespread social instability. It knows that rage will mount
as the elites squander diminishing resources while the poor, as well as the
working and middle classes, are driven into destitution. It wants to have the
legal measures to keep us cowed, afraid and under control.
It does not, I suspect, trust the police to maintain order. And this is why, contravening two centuries of domestic law, it has seized for itself the authority to place the military on city streets and citizens in military detention centers, where they cannot find redress in the courts. The shredding of our liberties is being done in the name of national security and the fight against terrorism. But the NDAA is not about protecting us. It is about protecting the state from us. That is why no one in the executive or legislative branch is going to restore our rights. The new version of the NDAA, like the old ones, provides our masters with the legal shackles to make our resistance impossible. And that is their intention.
The Senate and House had the opportunity this month to include in the 2013 version of the NDAA an unequivocal statement that all U.S. citizens would be exempt from 1021(b)(2), leaving the section to apply only to foreigners. But restoring due process for citizens was something the Republicans and the Democrats, along with the White House, refused to do. The fate of some of our most basic and important rights—ones enshrined in the Bill of Rights as well as the Fourth and Fifth amendments of the Constitution—will be decided in the next few months in the courts. If the courts fail us, a gulag state will be cemented into place.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Mike Lee, R-Utah, pushed through the Senate an amendment to the 2013 version of the NDAA. The amendment, although deeply flawed, at least made a symbolic attempt to restore the right to due process and trial by jury. A House-Senate conference committee led by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., however, removed the amendment from the bill last week.
(Photo: AP/Alex Brandon)“I was saddened and disappointed that we could not take a step forward to ensure at the very least American citizens and legal residents could not be held in detention without charge or trial,” Feinstein said in a statement issued by her office. “To me that was a no-brainer.”
The House approved the $633 billion NDAA for 2013 in a 315-107 vote late Thursday night. It will now go before the Senate. Several opponents of the NDAA in the House, including Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va., cited Congress’ refusal to guarantee due process and trial by jury to all citizens as his reason for voting against the bill. He wrote in a statement after the vote that “American citizens may fear being arrested and indefinitely detained by the military without knowing what they have done wrong.”
The Feinstein-Lee amendment was woefully inadequate. It was probably proposed mainly for its public relations value, but nonetheless it resisted the concerted assault on our rights and sought to calm nervous voters objecting to the destruction of the rule of law. The amendment failed to emphatically state that citizens could never be placed in military custody. Rather, it said citizens could not be placed in indefinite military custody without “trial.” But this could have been a trial by military tribunals. Citizens, under the amendment, could have been barred from receiving due process in a civil court. Still, it was better than nothing. And now we have nothing.
"Congressional moves concerning the NDAA make it clear that Congress as a whole has no stomach for the protection of civil liberties,” said attorney Bruce Afran, who along with attorney Carl Mayer has brought the lawsuit against President Obama in which we are attempting to block Section 1021(b)(2).
The only hero so far in this story is U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest of the Southern District Court of New York. Forrest in September accepted all of our challenges to the law. She issued a permanent injunction invalidating Section 1021(b)(2). Government lawyers asked Forrest for a “stay pending appeal”—meaning the law would go back into effect until the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a ruling in the case. She refused. The government then went directly to the Court of Appeals and asked it for a temporary stay while promising not to detain the plaintiffs or other U.S. citizens under the provision. The Court of Appeals, which will hear oral arguments in January, granted the government’s request for a temporary stay. The law went back into effect. If the Court of Appeals upholds Forrest’s ruling, the case will most likely be before the Supreme Court within weeks.
“President Obama should never have appealed this watershed civil rights ruling,” Mayer said. “But now that he has, the fight may well go all the way to the Supreme Court. At stake is whether America will slide more toward authoritarianism or whether the judicial branch of government will stem the decade-long erosion of our civil liberties. Since 9/11 Americans have been systematically stripped of their freedoms: Their phone calls are monitored under [George W.] Bush and Obama’s warrantless wiretapping program, they are videotaped relentlessly in public places, there are drones over American soil and the police control protesters and dissenters with paramilitary gear and tactics. As long as Obama and the leadership of both parties want the military to police our streets, we will fight. This is unacceptable, un-American and unconstitutional.”
We knew the government
would appeal, but we did not expect it to act so aggressively. This means, we
suspect, that the provision is already being used, most likely to hold people
with U.S. and Pakistani dual citizenship or U.S. and Afghan dual citizenship in
military detention sites such as Bagram. If the
injunction were allowed to stand during the appeal and U.S. citizens were being
held by the military without due process, the government would be in contempt of
court.
Judge Forrest’s 112-page opinion is a stark
explication and condemnation of the frightening erosion of the separation of
powers. In her opinion she referred to the Supreme Court ruling Korematsu v.
United States, which declared constitutional the government’s internment of
110,000 Japanese-Americans without due process during World War II. The 2013
NDAA, like the old versions of the act, allows similar indefinite detentions—of
Muslim Americans, dissidents and other citizens.Section 1021(b)(2) defines a “covered person”—one subject to detention—as “a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”
It does not, I suspect, trust the police to maintain order. And this is why, contravening two centuries of domestic law, it has seized for itself the authority to place the military on city streets and citizens in military detention centers, where they cannot find redress in the courts. The shredding of our liberties is being done in the name of national security and the fight against terrorism. But the NDAA is not about protecting us. It is about protecting the state from us. That is why no one in the executive or legislative branch is going to restore our rights. The new version of the NDAA, like the old ones, provides our masters with the legal shackles to make our resistance impossible. And that is their intention.
© 2012 TruthDig.com
