Congress Okay’s Indefinite Military “Detention” of Muslims

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.

 

Did I say “people”? the language actually couldn’t target Muslims more if it explicit used the word “Muslims”. The provisions of the bills say that sine we are at “War!” on “Terror”, the President has been given the authority to detain anyone connected with Al-Qaeda or, who may be suspected of supporting Al-Q “without trial until the end of the hostilities“. Who would such people be, but “Muzlems“?

While we are asking question, where is the “War!”? Iraq just ended, but we have been carrying on our “War!” in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen; we just ended the Iraq “War!” and just entered the Ugandan “War!” and don’t look now, but we have been financing (and probably sending Special Forces) an unofficial “War!” in Iran.

 

Can anyone let us know how we can tell if the “War!” has ended? Who defines victory?

Probably the most important question is WHO is “the enemy” (other than “Muzlems“)?

 

In writing these bills, Congress only had Muslims in mind otherwise, Congress would not have included references to Al-Q. This way, while they are busy hunting for the usual suspects (Muslims), the REAL bad guys get an open field to plan and implement their horrors on an unsuspecting America.

 

It’s not as if the lawmakers could be unaware of the many non-Muslims, who conspired to wreak havoc on innocent people in America, there are more examples than one can crush into an essay of this type, without making it look like a master list of terrorism. There is the group that made cyanide bombs that the FBI said, could kill all the people in a shopping mall. There were those who had enough explosives to flatten an entire city block, in the words of the FBI. There was also the man whose house had the largest cache of explosives ever found in any house in history. Apart from these, we have the Anthrax Bomber, the Pipe Bombers, the Car Bombers, the Backpack Bomber, the Machine gunners…examples abound! Yet, congress decided to target Muslims in this provision.

 

Instead of providing moral and constitutional leadership, President Obama has said he would sign the legislation when it came to his desk and with that, goes our last hope; he could have cited the Bill of Rights which guarantees the right to a speedy trial, the right to see evidence and the right to be tried in an open trial, by a Jury of one’s peers. Certainly the current Supreme Court cannot be expected to come to the aid of the US constitution, not after they ducked questions of Military Tribunals independent of the Supreme Court, not after their blatant silence over issues like Waterboarding, Extraordinary Rendition and not after they agreed that the fruits of “evidence” obtained under torture overseas, is admissible in US courts.

 

In the House (H.R. 1540), 322 Representatives voted “Aye”, 96 voted “Nay” and 13 abstained. In the Senate (S. 1867), 93 voted “Aye” and only 7 had the courage to voter “Nay”. Of the nine Representatives and two Senators that Washington state has, Rep. Jim McDermott was the only one with the courage of his convictions to vote against this nightmare bill. On his website, he said”

• “I have heard from nearly a thousand of my constituents in opposition to the appalling language in the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act, which contains sweeping provisions that allow the President to indefinitely lock up American citizens without charge or trial. History shows that acting on fear has dangerous and irreparable consequences on our nation – the illegal internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II is a prime example. I also reject the language in the bill that would severely restrict the transfer of detainees in Guantánamo Bay for any purpose, including trial in federal court. The Senate bill is un-American, unconstitutional and unnecessary. I urge my colleagues on the Senate and House Armed Services committees to strike out these abhorrent provisions in the final defense budget bill.”

Would that America were represented by more people with courage, rather than the opportunists who sit in Congress right now!