Here we go...

‘US bill to expand pres. war powers’

Published on May 13, 2011 by luckee1   ·   1 Comment

G.O.P.’s “Security Act” Will Repeal Due Process and Declare Permanent War 

By Mike Whitney

May 12, 2011 “Information Clearing House” – House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) is pushing a bill through congress that will repeal due process and give the President nearly-unlimited powers to wage war wherever and whenever he chooses without congressional approval. Because the language in the so-called Detainee Security Act of 2011 is (intentionally?) vague, it’s impossible to know at whom it is directed. Is the real focus on suspects captured by the military in the so-called War on Terror or civilians who oppose US foreign policy? It’s hard to say. Here’s an excerpt from an article in Talking Points Memo that mulls over that same question:

“The new language eschews references to September 11, and instead centers the authorization on “armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces,” though “associated forces” is not defined. It replaces the authority to target “organizations” and “persons” domestically with the power to target “all entities that continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad.” (“Congress Poised To Give President Power To Continue GWOT Indefinitely”, talkingpointsmemo.com)

Is that vague enough? Huffington Post’s Daphne Eviatar thinks the bill will “authorize the use of military force domestically, if terrorists are found here at home.” But, who knows?

In any event, President Barack Obama did not request these extraordinary powers, so it’s unclear whose interests are being served. Did Rep. McKeon concoct this bill himself in order to make the country safer or is he merely acting in behalf of powerful constituents who want a more autocratic form of government in the US? It’s impossible to know, but it’s odd that a Republican congressmen would want to expand presidential powers when a Democrat is in the White House.

Opposition to the Detainee Security Act of 2011, which is lumped together with the National Defense Authorization Act, has been minimal for the simple reason that the public has no idea what’s going on. This is another stealth campaign by the sleazebag-wing of GOP. The NDAA isn’t even on anyone’s radar, yet. But 32 (progressive) Democrats led by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) oppose many of the bill’s provisions, particularly those that would “allow the war on terrorism to continue indefinitely” and which would “formalize an indefinite detention system at Guantanamo.” (“Congress Poised To Give President Power To Continue GWOT Indefinitely”, talkingpointsmemo.com)

Here’s an excerpt from a letter from Conyers to McKeon expressing his concerns about the Detainee Security Act:

Dear Chairman McKeon:

We are writing concerning certain troubling provisions in H.R. 968, the Detainee Security Act of 2011, which we understand are likely to be considered as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of the Fiscal Year of 2012. Whatever one thinks about the merits of the Detainee Security Act, it is a serious enough departure from current counterterrorism policy and practice to merit consideration apart from the NDAA. Accordingly, we request that you use your chairmanship in the House Armed Services Committee to immediately hold hearings so that the public can further consider the various provisions within the Detainee Security Act.

Among the many troubling aspects of the Detainee Security Act are provisions that expand the war against terrorist organizations on a global basis. The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) of 2001 was widely thought to provide authorization for the war in Afghanistan to root out al Qaeda, the Taliban, and others responsible for the 9/11 attacks. That war has dragged on for almost ten years, and after the demise of Osama Bin Laden, as the United States prepares for withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Detainee Security Act purports to expand the “armed conflict” against the Taliban, al Qaeda, and “associated forces” without limit. By declaring a global war against nameless individuals, organizations, and nations “associated” with the Taliban and al Qaeda, as well as those playing a supporting role in their efforts, the Detainee Security Act would appear to grant the President near unfettered authority to initiate military action around the world without further congressional approval. Such authority must not be ceded to the President without careful deliberation from Congress….”
(Link— http://conyers.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=News.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=dbcf5e36-19b9-b4b1-12ba-bcb567a5c402 )

The Detainee Security Act eliminates any process under which prisoners captured by the US military can establish their innocence. If you’re caught by the military, then you’re guilty; it’s as simple as that.

Conyers again: ” The Detainee Security Act would also make permanent current transfer restrictions on Guantanamo detainees, further undermining the ability of the President to close the offshore detention facility.”

So, if the bill is passed, Guantanamo Bay will stay open forever and prisoners will continue to be deprived of due process. Naturally, putting the military in charge without congressional oversight increases the likelihood that detainees will be tortured or abused as they have been in the past.

The real aim of the NDAA is to eviscerate the power of congress. It limits congress’s power to restrain the president or to reign in the military. It enshrines the principle that the president can declare war by himself without getting a green light from congress. Thus, congress becomes a ceremonial institution stripped of any real political power.

The NDAA also includes other controversial provisions that are part of the right wing “wish list”. For example, the bill would give “the Secretary of Defense the authority to conduct clandestine cyberspace activities in support of military operations.” In other words, the military will continue to expand its spying, hacking and propaganda programs in and out of the country. But the main objectives of the new bill appear to be pretty straightforward: emasculate congress, savage the rule of law and elevate the executive to supreme leader. Then again, that’s what the GOP has always wanted, right?

#####################################

‘US bill to expand pres. war powers’

Thu May 12, 2011 9:12PM
The US Congress
The US Congress has introduced a resolution that would give the US president wide latitude of powers to wage war on other countries as part of the “war on terror.”

The fiscal 2012 Defense Authorization bill, sponsored by Howard P. “Buck” McKeon, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee will expand the legal basis for the war on terror and is moving through Congress amid harsh criticism from civil liberties groups, The Washington Times reported on Wednesday.

The proposed legislation clearly states that “the president has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the authorization for use of military force.”

The resolution, known as the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, comes less than two weeks after the US Navy SEAL commandos reportedly killed al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in his compound in the city of Abbottabad in Pakistan.

It is expected to replace legislation endorsed by the US Congress on Sept. 14, 2001 that authorized war on the people and groups that planned and carried out the September 11 attacks on the twin World Trade Center buildings in New York.

The provision was basically used by US lawmakers as a legal basis for expansion of the US administration’s powers to detain suspected terrorists without a fair trial and to authorize non-UN-sanctioned drone attacks as well as other clandestine military operations in countries where the US is not formally at war, the report says.

Meanwhile, many civil liberties groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union have seethed at the bill, saying the move will give any American president the unprecedented power to take US to wars wherever, whenever and however he or she wishes.

The American Civil Liberties Union says the proposed bill is problematic as it does not specify an end date to the so-called war on terror, adding that the legislation is widely viewed as a frantic attempt to find the end to the escalating conflicts and abuses of power in the name of fighting terrorism.

The US Official story about Bin Laden,compare...

Osama Bin Laden Dead: The Plan To Kill The Al Qaeda Leader

First Posted: 05/13/11 08:51 AM ET 
Updated: 05/13/11 12:10 PM ET

(Reuters) - A pivotal moment in the long, tortuous quest to find Osama bin Laden came years before U.S. spy agencies discovered his hermetic compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

In July 2007, then Senator Barack Obama's top foreign policy advisers met in the modest two-room Massachusetts Avenue offices that served as his campaign's Washington headquarters. There, they debated the incendiary language Obama would use in an upcoming speech on national security, according to a senior White House official.

Pakistan was a growing worry. A new, highly classified intelligence analysis, called a National Intelligence Estimate, had just identified militant safe havens in Pakistan's border areas as a major threat to U.S. security. The country's military leader, Pervez Musharraf, had recently cut a deal with local tribes that effectively eased pressure on al Qaeda and related groups.

Days after the Washington meeting, candidate Obama told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

It was the most carefully crafted sentence in the speech, a statement no U.S. leader had ever made. (Text of Obama's speech: link.reuters.com/weg59r)

In the two weeks since President Obama made good on that threat -- in fact, bested it by declining to give Pakistan a chance to act first -- reams have been written about the painstaking detective hunt that led to bin Laden.

But Reuters interviews with two dozen current and former senior intelligence, White House and State Department officials reveal another side of the story.

The 13-year quest to find and eliminate bin Laden, from the November 1998 day he was indicted by a federal grand jury for his role in the East Africa embassy bombings, was filled with missteps, course adjustments and radical new departures for U.S. security policy. It ultimately led to a fortified compound in a little known Pakistani city named after a long-dead British major.

Even with bin Laden buried at sea, the changes to U.S. security policy could linger for years, or decades.

The mission to destroy bin Laden, and his network, sparked the creation of a chillingly bureaucratic process for deciding who would be on "kill lists," authorized for death at the hands of the CIA. It revolutionized the use of pilotless drones to find and attack militants; drove the controversially brutal treatment of detainees in U.S. custody; and brought the United States and Pakistan closer together, then wrenched them apart.

(Even in ordering the risky Navy SEAL raid on May 1, Obama made allowances for Pakistan's sensitivities. The raid was carried out by the U.S. military but under CIA legal authorities and command, partly for deniability if something went wrong and partly because the United States is not at war with Pakistan, a U.S. official said.)

But there was one constant in the search for bin Laden. On September 17, 2001, six days after the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush issued a still-classified "finding" that gave the CIA "lethal authorities" to deal with the al Qaeda leader and his top lieutenants. Ever since, there was an expectation -- even a preference -- that bin Laden would be killed, not captured, Bush and Obama administration officials said.

The same day that Bush signed the directive, he publicly declared bin Laden was wanted "dead or alive."

Numerous officials said they knew of no explicit command that bin Laden was not to be taken alive. When he ordered the SEAL raid, Obama had on his desk a written protocol for what would happen if the al Qaeda chief were captured and removed from Pakistan to an unnamed U.S. military installation, the senior White House official said.

But it was vaguer than the rest of the operational plan, and the expectation among most of the people who planned and executed the mission was that bin Laden would be killed. If bin Laden had surrendered, Obama's senior advisers "would have to reconvene and make a decision about what to do with him," said one official, who like many requested anonymity to discuss sensitive national security matters. "It was intentionally left to be decided after the fact."

Richard Armitage, who was deputy secretary of state in Bush's first term, voiced the view that prevailed through two presidencies. "I think we took Osama bin Laden at his word, that he wanted to be a martyr," Armitage told Reuters.

The U.S. government, he said, would do all it could to help bin Laden realize that goal.

RABBIT HOLES AND WRONG TURNS

The hunt for bin Laden turned out to be riddled with dead ends, wrong turns and long, desolate periods of frustration.

The 9/11 attacks would push the Bush administration into a war in Iraq that critics -- including candidate Obama -- denounced as a dangerous diversion from al Qaeda and its Afghanistan/Pakistan nexus. Interrogation techniques such as "waterboarding," a form of simulated drowning, were used on a handful of suspects deemed most dangerous, sparking a debate -- it erupted again on May 2 -- over the best way to fight terrorism.

In Afghanistan's Tora Bora mountains in December 2001, U.S. special forces came close to bin Laden -- perhaps within 2,000 meters, according to the published recollections of a former U.S. Army special forces commander who uses the pseudonym "Dalton Fury."

Opting to rely on local Afghan allies, the United States declined to send in the 1,500 U.S. Army Rangers needed to block bin Laden's escape route.

It would be more than nine years before U.S. special forces would get that close again.

In the intervening years, "there were a lot of empty rabbit holes down which we pursued and ultimately didn't find any results. It was very frustrating," said Juan Zarate, a top White House counter-terrorism aide from 2005-2009. "I always had a mantra that I used for myself, both not to get too discouraged and also with the counter-terrorism community, which is: these guys are not ghosts. They are flesh and blood and can be found and we'll find them."

With virtually no hard knowledge, U.S. counter-terrorism officials said they assumed bin Laden was hiding in the mountainous, lawless Afghan-Pakistan border region. But it's now believed that after Tora Bora, he spent some time in Afghanistan's eastern Kunar province, crossed the border into Pakistan in late summer or fall 2002, moved to a Pakistani village in 2003 for a couple of years, and hid in plain sight in Abbottabad beginning in 2005 or 2006.

Yet even in deadly U.S. failures, there were small breakthroughs.

On February 4, 2002, a Predator drone struck a group of men in Arab dress in the Zawar Kili area of eastern Afghanistan. Among them was a tall man to whom others were acting deferentially, U.S. officials said at the time.

It turned out not to be bin Laden. Reports quoted local residents saying it was a group of villagers collecting scrap metal. But before the episode was over, U.S. intelligence agencies had received, with help from the Saudi government, a DNA sample from bin Laden's extended family that would clinch identification if he were ever found.

FROM CAPTURE TO KILL

It was President Bill Clinton who launched the hunt for bin Laden. After the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Clinton signed what some former U.S. officials called a "covert action finding" authorizing CIA operations against al Qaeda, then regarded as a marginal Islamic militant faction with an eccentric, Saudi-born leader.

But some Clinton aides, led by attorney general Janet Reno, were concerned about the legality of killing bin Laden, former top intelligence and counter-terrorism officials said. Clinton's orders permitted U.S. forces to kill bin Laden in self-defense, but the prime directive was to capture him and bring him to justice in the United States.

Abreu,listen....

Speakers Jose Antonio Abreu: Maestro

Jose Antonio Abreu founded El Sistema ("the system") in 1975 to help poor Venezuelan kids learn to play a musical instrument and be part of an orchestra. 30 years on, El Sistema has seeded 102 youth orchestras -- and many happy lives.

Why you should listen to him:

The gulf between the rich and the poor in Venezuela is one of the worst in the world. Jose Antonio Abreu, an economist, musician, and reformer, founded El Sistema ("the system") in 1975 to help Venezuelan kids take part in classical music. After 30 years (and 10 political administrations), El Sistema is a nationwide organization of 102 youth orchestras, 55 children's orchestras, and 270 music centers -- and close to 250,000 young musicians. 

El Sistema uses music education to help kids from impoverished circumstances achieve their full potential and learn values that favor their growth. The talented musicians have become a source of national pride. Several El Sistema students have gone on to major international careers, including Gustavo Dudamel, soon to be the music director of the Los Angeles Philharmonic, and the bassist Edicson Ruiz, who at 17 became the youngest musician ever to join the Berlin Philharmonic.

There is a simple concept behind Abreu's work: for him an orchestra is first and foremost about together ness, a place where children learn to listen to each other and to respect one another.
"Music has to be recognized as an ... agent of social development in the highest sense, because it transmits the highest values -- solidarity, harmony, mutual compassion. And it has the ability to unite an entire community and to express sublime feelings."
José Antonio Abreu