So, who’s going to vote against the Holy Grail of Defense Appropriations, especially to protect “Muzlems“?
“Defense” has become such an ultra-patriotic issue that nobody dares speak against “Defense” and all sorts of evil is justified behind the screen of “Defense”. Our idiotic “War!”s have morphed into a “Defense” issue where being against the Iraq “War!” and the Afghan “War!” means we are weak on “Defense” and we are against “our boys” who are out there sacrificing their lives to protect us. Nobody dares ask how this protection became necessary or why and why opposing the idiot “War!”s means we hate “our boys in uniform”.
“Defense” has become a racket where millionaire have become billionaires but the appetites are not yet sated.
It is this atmosphere that the latest Defense Appropriations bills came up in the House and in the Senate. I suppose it is fine that they did, after all, once we are in a “War!”, there is little choice but to continue funding the “Defense” forces. This is where “earmarks” slither into the picture. These are supposedly “minor” attachments to the larger bill such that in order to vote against the earmark, one has to vote against the entire bill. In matters of important bills, it is very difficult for a Senator or a Representative to vote against an entire bill, just to take a stand against an earmark.
This must have been the line of thinking when they inserted provisions in the Defense Appropriations Bills (H.R. 1540 and S. 1967), provisions that could almost be overlooked unless one were reading the bill (which most Congress members don’t); sections 1031 and 1032 allow the Administration to imprison (“Detain”) people indefinitely. Continue reading