US Executive may Veto Senate Bill on Indefinite Detention for 'Terrorist' Suspects
by quill Saturday, Dec 3 2011, 11:10pm
international / social/political / commentary
An Ongoing Political Farce
Perhaps it would be helpful if we first defined terrorism -- as the entire militaristic PERMANENT WAR DOCTRINE America embarked on a decade past revolves around the SIGNIFIER, ‘terrorism!’
'TERRORISM' is accurately defined as the politically motivated act of killing/murdering INNOCENT civilians (particularly children) and belligerently destroying private property in order to further a political agenda or cause. There you have it, an accurate though not exhaustive definition, which has been encoded in various forms in criminal Law for centuries.
[Now] armed with a clear definition, the MORAL MAJORITY is easily able to IDENTIFY, with the intention of apprehending and prosecuting CRIMINAL terrorists, those forces/entities that openly murder innocent civilians and destroy other peoples' property.
Historical research clearly reveals that the PRINCIPAL CRIMINAL TERRORIST FORCE on the planet is the United States of America. Banker/Corporatist controlled criminal America has murdered more innocent civilians post WWII, than all the other nations on earth COMBINED! A shocking but accurate FACT! Check the figures for yourselves; 3-4 million in Indo-China and 1.5 million recently in Central Asia, to name only two infamous holocaust examples. If we add murders by proxy governments in Asia (Malaya and Indonesia) and Latin America the figure skyrockets by millions again! We needn't labour the point as the HISTORICAL RECORD SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.
Now that we have ESTABLISHED the IDENTITY of the primary, criminal TERRORIST entity on the planet, WE, as the most powerful social force on the planet -- the MORAL majority -- should DEMAND that the full force of the LAW be applied, in other words, we should demand the IMMEDIATE arrest of ALL known criminal terrorists with the view of holding them accountable for the MANY heinous crimes they are directly and indirectly responsible for; seems like a good idea for a moral, law-abiding, civilised society, wouldn't you think, or are we INCAPABLE of basic reasoning, rational thought and responsible ACTION? [It would seem so if the managed ‘Occupy movement’ is any indication -- remain directionless and PASSIVE while I spray mace in your face then arrest YOU for having no political agenda or objectives!]
Now to the REAL farce to which the title refers; call me a cynic but we shouldn’t forget that the presidential election campaign begins very early in the USA and that Obama first proposed (under instruction) a “preventative detention” (thought crime) act -- which the provisions in the recently passed Bill comprehensively cover.
The Executive Office is ‘now’ seriously considering a Veto (for political reasons) on the recently passed indefinite detention provision in the Bill. It seems the provision would complicate ‘legal’ matters for the world’s leading terrorist State:
“Detainee Matters: The Administration objects to and has serious legal and policy concerns about many of the detainee provisions in the bill. In their current form, some of these provisions disrupt the Executive branch's ability to enforce the law and impose unwise and unwarranted restrictions on the U.S. Government's ability to aggressively combat international terrorism; other provisions inject legal uncertainty and ambiguity that may only complicate the military's operations and detention practices...[The new provision would be in direct violation of the “Posse Comitatus Act” of 1878 which expressly forbids the US military undertaking any domestic policing role – nevertheless, the 1878 act is easily circumvented and has been used politically by various astute politicians.]
The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects. This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President's authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals. Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets.”