The votes are in, the tally set, Mitt Romney is our President, inaugurated a week or so ago. Have to give him credit, he sure hit the ground running. With the House and Senate all locked up in GOP hands, it has been easy to make the changes the right wing has been wanting and fighting for years.
As a recap, what has happened in the last week.
The Ryan budget finally became law, austerity and lower taxes on business, a voucher plan for Medicare to mention a few things.
A 20% increase in the defense budget.
The biggest changes coming the regulatory environment. EPA, FDA, Department of Education all defunded. New laws rescinding Federal mandates in virtually all areas of regulation, replacing them with recommendations or suggestions to the states. States now will be responsible for their own environment, education, food safety and immigration.
Virtually all Federal education, social programs, education programs, loan guarantees are abolished, leaving it up to the states to fund their own social programs, if they choose to have them at all. Medicaid and Food Stamps are eliminated on the Federal level.
The NLRB too was defunded and the question of labor relations to be answered by the states, the national minimum wage being rescinded, also left up to the states. Revenue sharing is being phased out so as not to share the wealth between the states.
Each state will be losing about 1/3rd of their budgets due to Federal cutbacks, leaving the states to replace that funding from other sources.
As promised, the entire Affordable Care Act was revoked and the Federal mandate that any hospital MUST treat a person on an emergency basis, insured or not, is also repealed.
Congress is now considering repealing the American with Disabilities Act, all laws regarding discrimination, workplace safety and equal pay and protections.
To reduce the liability of Social Security, Social Security Disability program is terminated.
The military will no longer allow gay's to serve, gay right's are being purged and national laws are under study to remove state responsibilities and authorities on this issue.
There is also a new cabinet post, the Department of Moral Responsibility. This department will provide moral guidance to all areas of Federal responsibility, to provide litmus tests for appointees.
The first week was not without controversy too. Vice President Jindal had to step down a few days after taking the oath of office. The Congress passed a law making a person a person at the moment of conception. Mr. Jindal's mother was 6 months pregnant when she emigrated to the US which disqualified Mr. Jindal since he was a 'person' created in India. Mr. Jindal was replaced by Paul Ryan as Vice President.
And this is just the beginning.......
Showing posts with label Military. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Military. Show all posts
Monday, June 11, 2012
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Mitt Romney...Can he turn things around?
The Romney campaign has made a lot of noise, how he is a job creator and has the business experience to turn our economy around. Frankly, I am not convinced he can do this. My reasons are fairly simple. Mr. Romney's focus has always been to make a profit, regardless of the costs or the risks. Risks. This is the key. In Romney's business world he and his com-padre's would buy a corporation and sell off the individual assets and take the write-offs for the ones left over to offset the profits they made off the sale of assets. To some this is called 'Vulture Capitalism'. This is a fairly easy thing to do if you have the money behind you. The system is rigged to take advantage of this sort of operation. This is the basis for Mr. Romney's argument that he is a businessman, a job creator as the primary function of Bain Capital. This could be further from the truth. Bain's focus was to make money, increase wealth without creating one single job. Now, I am not complaining as to what Bain was doing. But to suggest that Romney is somehow qualified to turn the economy around based upon his vast business experience is misrepresenting reality.
Think of the US government as a giant corporation and you were Bain Capital, what would you do to make a buck? First you would identify those parts of the corporation which are the money makers and money losers. Can you imagine trying to sell off parts of the government to reduce overhead and costs, to bankrupt the losers and sell off the money makers? This is the experience Mr. Romney has. How this equates to government escapes me unless he plans on privatizing the parts government he can and selling them off.
The bottom line is this. Romney's plan would be to cut all money losing programs, essential or otherwise. If it's losing money, get rid of it. Then he can cut taxes across the board to match what has been cut loose. One thing is certain, people like Romney have no conscience when it comes to real people. Imagine sitting in a meeting at Bain Capital when a decision is made to shift a financial responsibility from one company to another then bankrupt that company, causing those employees to lose their jobs? Do you really think anyone stood up and said, 'what about the people?'. There is an old saying, Business is business, nothing personal.
The question we have to ask is this. Should we risk our future on a person who is risk averse, or do we maintain the status quo? The economy is clearly on the rebound as it is. If it wasn't, then maybe we should look for change.
Think of the US government as a giant corporation and you were Bain Capital, what would you do to make a buck? First you would identify those parts of the corporation which are the money makers and money losers. Can you imagine trying to sell off parts of the government to reduce overhead and costs, to bankrupt the losers and sell off the money makers? This is the experience Mr. Romney has. How this equates to government escapes me unless he plans on privatizing the parts government he can and selling them off.
The bottom line is this. Romney's plan would be to cut all money losing programs, essential or otherwise. If it's losing money, get rid of it. Then he can cut taxes across the board to match what has been cut loose. One thing is certain, people like Romney have no conscience when it comes to real people. Imagine sitting in a meeting at Bain Capital when a decision is made to shift a financial responsibility from one company to another then bankrupt that company, causing those employees to lose their jobs? Do you really think anyone stood up and said, 'what about the people?'. There is an old saying, Business is business, nothing personal.
The question we have to ask is this. Should we risk our future on a person who is risk averse, or do we maintain the status quo? The economy is clearly on the rebound as it is. If it wasn't, then maybe we should look for change.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Propaganda and Hate, are you are you as sick of it as much as I am?
For the last year I have been compelled to do battle with those extremists on the right as well as the left. Dr. Goebbels would be more than proud with the multiple propaganda machines in play, Hitler himself coined the phrase, "when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously." ".
There are multiple examples of how propaganda has worked itself into our collective consciousness'. The subjects range from the President's right to serve to Monsanto and GMO's.
As I said, the right and the left are guilty. I use those terms as a matter if simplicity. One can break them down into their specific components, but don't think that is necessary.
On a social networking site the latest rant is about Monsanto and GMO's. I asked the simple question, why are so many people against Monsanto? What have they done so wrong to draw the ire of so many people? Well, it all starts with propaganda. Pictures and graphics and data taken totally out of context is how it begins. So I asked the obvious question, is any of this true? So I did my research and was able to come to my own conclusion when taking the facts into consideration. These facts came from reputable sources other than from sources who had an axe to grind and also from Monsanto's site. I sourced from FDA and EPA and the NIH among others. The results were clear, those who 'hate' Monsanto have absolutely no basis to do so if they were to accept the facts, scientifically proven.
For example, some argue that glyphosate used in Roundup causes cancer. This is completely false. There is no evidence to support that claim, in fact just the opposite. Some argue that Roundup poisons people, again a claim which is completely false. The state of California has a reporting system and in 13 years not one case of hospitalization due to Roundup poisoning has been reported. What the haters do not tell you is that the patent for Roundup expired in 2000, twelve years ago. Other pesticide manufacturers use glyphosate and some of their chemical formulations, the surficants they use when mixed with glyphosate can cause some issues, but glyphosate in and of itself is safe.
Genetically modified seeds is another hate issue. Some argue, as in a current court case brought by a lobby against Monsanto that GMO's are not organic and that Monsanto should not be able to actually patent a seed product, that the farmers fear that Monsanto would sue them for cross-contamination. What they won't tell you is this. According to FDA, acting under LAW created rules regarding GMO's in 1992. Without getting into details, what FDA said is that GMO products are considered exactly the same if their characteristics are identical to a non-GMO product. These rule have withstood every court case. As for cross-contamination, GMO seeds are self terminating, meaning they cannot reproduce, hence no cross-contamination. Monsanto has never filed suit in a cross-contamination situation and has said they will not if this were the case. What the propaganda also claims is that Monsanto is sue happy and will sue organic farmers, their argument being over 700 farmers settling out of court and 124 other lawsuits. What they won't tell you is that those settlements were a result of those farmers breaking their contract with Monsanto over seed theft and/or seed hoarding. These were farmers who bought Monsanto seed and broke their contracts. The also claim that Monsanto enters property illegally, which is also false. Monsanto asks the farmer if they may enter the property, if the farmer refuses, Monsanto goes to court and gets a court order to allow them access because they have a contract with the farmer and have a right to protect their patent rights. Which takes us back to why they want the courts to deny Monsanto the right to patent their seeds. What I found interesting is that some people then use the argument that FDA is corrupt, EPA is corrupt. Okay, so Monsanto is fine, but the government is now corrupt.
Briefly I will touch on hormones, rGBH. This is another propaganda issue against Monsanto. The science disputes the claims made by the haters. But there is a twist to this propaganda. Monsanto has been vilified for continuing to sell rGBH to farmers when the truth is, Monsanto sold their rGBH product line to Eli Lilly in 2007, five years ago!! Imagine the silence when I mention this fact.
Lets shift to Keystone XL. Here are some facts which the haters won't tell you. Keystone XL is NOT the first pipeline built by TransCanada to the US, there is one which was built a couple of years back to St. Louis, MO from the tar sands in Alberta. Where was the outcry then? If the pipeline is so 'unsafe' then why allow the first one, which has proven to be extremely safe. There are nearly 200,000 miles of pipeline in this country already. Why is this one drawing so much attention? Oh, the aquifer issue in Nebraska? What they won't tell you is that the state of Nebraska and TC have rerouted the pipeline. What they won't tell you that in the state of Nebraska alone, land owners are being compensated with one time payments for the use of their land anywhere from $10,000 to $110,000, not to mention the taxes which will flow to country governments, one of which is planning on using that money to build new schools, something they could not afford to do without the pipeline. Then there are the refineries being expanded to accommodate the oil. This pipeline will increase oil capacity to the US by another 900,000 barrels a day from a friendly source. Now, do you really want to know what the argument over the pipeline is? It's not the pipeline surprisingly enough. The pipeline is a red herring. What the environmentalists want to do is shut down the tar sands mining and they believe that if the pipeline is not built, the oil sands mining will stop. Silly of course, but those are the facts. The oil sands issue is a Canadian, not a US issue. The Canadian courts have backed the government of Alberta, so these guys figure they can take their case to the US and force a US President to step in on a Canadian issue. Imagine Canada telling us NOT to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico!!!
How about Exxon and their 'profits'? Last year Exxon had revenues of nearly $500 B. Exxon paid $108 B in taxes, $30 B of those taxes were US income taxes on profits of $71 B, their net profit was $41 B, $10 B of which was from an asset sale. Exxon's profit margin is roughly 6.5%, about the same as GM. For comparison, Apple, which has more money in the bank than the US Treasury, is $28%, Microsoft is 33%, McDonalds is 17%, WalMart 3.4%. Yet there are those who want to bash Exxon...my question is why Exxon? Imagine if we had no oil companies, what would be our complaint then?
Now for some political crap.
Obama said unemployment would not go over 8%.
Yes, he said that. He also was repeating what the Bush transition team had told him. No one knew at the time how bad the economy had tanked. The fact is in his first month in office, unemployment went over 8%, hardly his fault. May I point out that unemployment peaked at a little over 10%. In comparison, unemployment peaked over 12% when Reagan was President, 20% where I lived in central Florida. Jobs are coming back from Mexico and China as the standard of living in those countries has negated the lower labor costs, plus the two tiered UAW labor agreements. VW spent a billion $ on a new plant in Chattanooga, Hyundai and Kia and BMW and Daimler-Benz are expanding US factories and increasing production. GM is reopening the Saturn plant in Spring Hill.
Obama's economic policies have been a total failure.
Unemployment is back down to when he took office, the stock market is back. GM and Chrysler were saved and have returned to profitability and expanding, increasing investments. Record profits. Instead of building on the positive momentum the GOP won't even admit that it exists.
Repeal Obamacare.
No President can repeal anything. 85% of Americans have health insurance, so who is complaining about mandates? The 7% who refuse to take responsibility for their own medical care, letting the tax payer foot their bills.
Same sex marriage.
Give me one secular, legal reason why this cannot be allowed?
Taxing the uber wealthy is a tax hike.
False, the tax breaks the wealthy were given on their personal income was temporary, all the President wants them to pay is the actual, statutory rate authorized by Congress. Since the tax breaks are on personal income, it has NO effect on job creation. There is no shred of evidence to prove that those tax breaks have created one single job in 10 years. In fact, tax breaks are actually an expense according to the IRS. That expense, which will have to be paid for by the rest of us is running close to $1 trillion.
I could go on and on, I have probably already lost my audience as it is. My point here is this. Beware of the propaganda machines. Become a cynic. Question everything. Think on your own, don't let anyone tell you what to think or believe.
There are multiple examples of how propaganda has worked itself into our collective consciousness'. The subjects range from the President's right to serve to Monsanto and GMO's.
As I said, the right and the left are guilty. I use those terms as a matter if simplicity. One can break them down into their specific components, but don't think that is necessary.
On a social networking site the latest rant is about Monsanto and GMO's. I asked the simple question, why are so many people against Monsanto? What have they done so wrong to draw the ire of so many people? Well, it all starts with propaganda. Pictures and graphics and data taken totally out of context is how it begins. So I asked the obvious question, is any of this true? So I did my research and was able to come to my own conclusion when taking the facts into consideration. These facts came from reputable sources other than from sources who had an axe to grind and also from Monsanto's site. I sourced from FDA and EPA and the NIH among others. The results were clear, those who 'hate' Monsanto have absolutely no basis to do so if they were to accept the facts, scientifically proven.
For example, some argue that glyphosate used in Roundup causes cancer. This is completely false. There is no evidence to support that claim, in fact just the opposite. Some argue that Roundup poisons people, again a claim which is completely false. The state of California has a reporting system and in 13 years not one case of hospitalization due to Roundup poisoning has been reported. What the haters do not tell you is that the patent for Roundup expired in 2000, twelve years ago. Other pesticide manufacturers use glyphosate and some of their chemical formulations, the surficants they use when mixed with glyphosate can cause some issues, but glyphosate in and of itself is safe.
Genetically modified seeds is another hate issue. Some argue, as in a current court case brought by a lobby against Monsanto that GMO's are not organic and that Monsanto should not be able to actually patent a seed product, that the farmers fear that Monsanto would sue them for cross-contamination. What they won't tell you is this. According to FDA, acting under LAW created rules regarding GMO's in 1992. Without getting into details, what FDA said is that GMO products are considered exactly the same if their characteristics are identical to a non-GMO product. These rule have withstood every court case. As for cross-contamination, GMO seeds are self terminating, meaning they cannot reproduce, hence no cross-contamination. Monsanto has never filed suit in a cross-contamination situation and has said they will not if this were the case. What the propaganda also claims is that Monsanto is sue happy and will sue organic farmers, their argument being over 700 farmers settling out of court and 124 other lawsuits. What they won't tell you is that those settlements were a result of those farmers breaking their contract with Monsanto over seed theft and/or seed hoarding. These were farmers who bought Monsanto seed and broke their contracts. The also claim that Monsanto enters property illegally, which is also false. Monsanto asks the farmer if they may enter the property, if the farmer refuses, Monsanto goes to court and gets a court order to allow them access because they have a contract with the farmer and have a right to protect their patent rights. Which takes us back to why they want the courts to deny Monsanto the right to patent their seeds. What I found interesting is that some people then use the argument that FDA is corrupt, EPA is corrupt. Okay, so Monsanto is fine, but the government is now corrupt.
Briefly I will touch on hormones, rGBH. This is another propaganda issue against Monsanto. The science disputes the claims made by the haters. But there is a twist to this propaganda. Monsanto has been vilified for continuing to sell rGBH to farmers when the truth is, Monsanto sold their rGBH product line to Eli Lilly in 2007, five years ago!! Imagine the silence when I mention this fact.
Lets shift to Keystone XL. Here are some facts which the haters won't tell you. Keystone XL is NOT the first pipeline built by TransCanada to the US, there is one which was built a couple of years back to St. Louis, MO from the tar sands in Alberta. Where was the outcry then? If the pipeline is so 'unsafe' then why allow the first one, which has proven to be extremely safe. There are nearly 200,000 miles of pipeline in this country already. Why is this one drawing so much attention? Oh, the aquifer issue in Nebraska? What they won't tell you is that the state of Nebraska and TC have rerouted the pipeline. What they won't tell you that in the state of Nebraska alone, land owners are being compensated with one time payments for the use of their land anywhere from $10,000 to $110,000, not to mention the taxes which will flow to country governments, one of which is planning on using that money to build new schools, something they could not afford to do without the pipeline. Then there are the refineries being expanded to accommodate the oil. This pipeline will increase oil capacity to the US by another 900,000 barrels a day from a friendly source. Now, do you really want to know what the argument over the pipeline is? It's not the pipeline surprisingly enough. The pipeline is a red herring. What the environmentalists want to do is shut down the tar sands mining and they believe that if the pipeline is not built, the oil sands mining will stop. Silly of course, but those are the facts. The oil sands issue is a Canadian, not a US issue. The Canadian courts have backed the government of Alberta, so these guys figure they can take their case to the US and force a US President to step in on a Canadian issue. Imagine Canada telling us NOT to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico!!!
How about Exxon and their 'profits'? Last year Exxon had revenues of nearly $500 B. Exxon paid $108 B in taxes, $30 B of those taxes were US income taxes on profits of $71 B, their net profit was $41 B, $10 B of which was from an asset sale. Exxon's profit margin is roughly 6.5%, about the same as GM. For comparison, Apple, which has more money in the bank than the US Treasury, is $28%, Microsoft is 33%, McDonalds is 17%, WalMart 3.4%. Yet there are those who want to bash Exxon...my question is why Exxon? Imagine if we had no oil companies, what would be our complaint then?
Now for some political crap.
Obama said unemployment would not go over 8%.
Yes, he said that. He also was repeating what the Bush transition team had told him. No one knew at the time how bad the economy had tanked. The fact is in his first month in office, unemployment went over 8%, hardly his fault. May I point out that unemployment peaked at a little over 10%. In comparison, unemployment peaked over 12% when Reagan was President, 20% where I lived in central Florida. Jobs are coming back from Mexico and China as the standard of living in those countries has negated the lower labor costs, plus the two tiered UAW labor agreements. VW spent a billion $ on a new plant in Chattanooga, Hyundai and Kia and BMW and Daimler-Benz are expanding US factories and increasing production. GM is reopening the Saturn plant in Spring Hill.
Obama's economic policies have been a total failure.
Unemployment is back down to when he took office, the stock market is back. GM and Chrysler were saved and have returned to profitability and expanding, increasing investments. Record profits. Instead of building on the positive momentum the GOP won't even admit that it exists.
Repeal Obamacare.
No President can repeal anything. 85% of Americans have health insurance, so who is complaining about mandates? The 7% who refuse to take responsibility for their own medical care, letting the tax payer foot their bills.
Same sex marriage.
Give me one secular, legal reason why this cannot be allowed?
Taxing the uber wealthy is a tax hike.
False, the tax breaks the wealthy were given on their personal income was temporary, all the President wants them to pay is the actual, statutory rate authorized by Congress. Since the tax breaks are on personal income, it has NO effect on job creation. There is no shred of evidence to prove that those tax breaks have created one single job in 10 years. In fact, tax breaks are actually an expense according to the IRS. That expense, which will have to be paid for by the rest of us is running close to $1 trillion.
I could go on and on, I have probably already lost my audience as it is. My point here is this. Beware of the propaganda machines. Become a cynic. Question everything. Think on your own, don't let anyone tell you what to think or believe.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Concentration Camps being built in the US as we speak.
For the last few weeks we have been told that the Defense Authorization Bill includes a section which allows for the detention of American citizens, without charge, due process and habeas corpus. I have been frustrated to no end because I have actually read the bill and the section in question and by any rational standard, there is no such language, in simple fact, does just the opposite. For simplicity sake, I will provide here the actual text of the relevant sections AND the anchor law in effect by which sets the standard for ANY detention.
Now as you can see Sections 1031 and 1032 are inextricably tied to public law 107-40, which is the authorization for carrying out military operations OVERSEAS, with specific authorization against operations against Al Qaida. There is an important distinction here as the authority is given for operations overseas and under the cover of the LAW of war. This does NOT have anything to do with domestic operations, since there are no domestic operations authorized as that would be a violation of posse comitatus.
The ONLY people who can be detained are covered in 1031(b) 1,2. This is a very narrow focus and only applies to those detained during operations under PL 107-40.
As for US citizens, Section 1032(b) 1,2 is quite clear. US citizens CANNOT be detained by the military under this bill. Section 1032 (a) specifically outlines under what conditions anyone may be detained at all. They must be have been captured in the course of hostilities against the US.
Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001 Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]
107th CONGRESS
JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against
those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United
States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Now as you can see Sections 1031 and 1032 are inextricably tied to public law 107-40, which is the authorization for carrying out military operations OVERSEAS, with specific authorization against operations against Al Qaida. There is an important distinction here as the authority is given for operations overseas and under the cover of the LAW of war. This does NOT have anything to do with domestic operations, since there are no domestic operations authorized as that would be a violation of posse comitatus.
The ONLY people who can be detained are covered in 1031(b) 1,2. This is a very narrow focus and only applies to those detained during operations under PL 107-40.
As for US citizens, Section 1032(b) 1,2 is quite clear. US citizens CANNOT be detained by the military under this bill. Section 1032 (a) specifically outlines under what conditions anyone may be detained at all. They must be have been captured in the course of hostilities against the US.
SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
- (a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the
Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the
authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered
persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law
of war.
- (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
- (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored those responsible for those attacks.
- (2) 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.
- (c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include
the following:
- (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until
the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of
Military Force.
- (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States
Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of
Public Law 111-84)).
- (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
- (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's
country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign
entity.
- (d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to
limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the
Authorization for Use of Military Force.
- (e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or
any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
- (f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of
Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the
authority described in this section, including the organizations,
entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for
purposes of subsection (b)(2).
SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
- (a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-
- (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4),
the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in
paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in
military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
- (2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1)
shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section
1031 who is determined--
- (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an
associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the
direction of al-Qaeda; and
- (B) to have participated in the course of planning
or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States
or its coalition partners.
- (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this
subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the
meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise
described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless
consistent with the requirements of section 1033.
- (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of
Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the
Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph
(1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that
such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United
States.
- (b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
- (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a
person in military custody under this section does not extend to
citizens of the United States.
- (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a
person in military custody under this section does not extend to a
lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct
taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by
the Constitution of the United States.
- (c) Implementation Procedures-
- (1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to
Congress, procedures for implementing this section.
- (2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
- (A) Procedures designating the persons authorized
to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which
such determinations are to be made.
- (B) Procedures providing that the requirement for
military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the
interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with
regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United
States.
- (C) Procedures providing that a determination under
subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the
conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the
determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such
ongoing session.
- (D) Procedures providing that the requirement for
military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when
intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the
United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the
custody of a third country.
- (E) Procedures providing that a certification of
national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for
the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if
such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not
otherwise be accomplished.
- (d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the
date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and
shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who
are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United
States on or after that effective date.
- Here is public law 107-40 which serves as the anchor for this section.
September 18, 2001 Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]
107th CONGRESS
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
- Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Friday, December 3, 2010
Don't Ask Don't Tell. DADT
I am not sure what the big deal is with DADT. A little history here. Prior to DADT, the Military would ask you if you were a homosexual and if you told the truth, they would reject you. DADT made an accommodation in this area by eliminating the question. If you were gay and were willing to follow the rules, in other words not engage in homosexual activity while on duty and kept your sexual orientation quiet, you could serve.
From my point of view, the only practical difference between getting rid of DADT is simply this, gays can now serve openly if they choose to. The only difference between now and repeal is the fact they can actually say they are gay if they choose to and not be kicked out. Gays are serving now in the military, that is a fact. For the life of me, this is much ado about nothing. It's not like there will be an influx of gays in the military except for those 80,000 who have been kicked out for admitting it, those who may wish to return to active duty.
This is not necessarily a moral issue for me. The reality is there are gay folks, simple fact of life. To deny them the opportunity to serve just like the rest of us seems unfair. They are good Americans who want to serve their country, to defend her as those before. They don't do it because they are gay, they do it it because they are Americans.
The military conducted their studies and the facts are clear. DADT must go. Congress should accept this. The military wants it to end, if it's ok with them, who are we to say otherwise? Think of it this way. When was the last time the military actually asked the rank and file what they thought? NEVER. The answer is clear, 70% said, get rid of it.
From my point of view, the only practical difference between getting rid of DADT is simply this, gays can now serve openly if they choose to. The only difference between now and repeal is the fact they can actually say they are gay if they choose to and not be kicked out. Gays are serving now in the military, that is a fact. For the life of me, this is much ado about nothing. It's not like there will be an influx of gays in the military except for those 80,000 who have been kicked out for admitting it, those who may wish to return to active duty.
This is not necessarily a moral issue for me. The reality is there are gay folks, simple fact of life. To deny them the opportunity to serve just like the rest of us seems unfair. They are good Americans who want to serve their country, to defend her as those before. They don't do it because they are gay, they do it it because they are Americans.
The military conducted their studies and the facts are clear. DADT must go. Congress should accept this. The military wants it to end, if it's ok with them, who are we to say otherwise? Think of it this way. When was the last time the military actually asked the rank and file what they thought? NEVER. The answer is clear, 70% said, get rid of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)