OCCUPY WALL STREET

[Diavolo]

Originally Posted by persiphone

gee i can't imagine. we are just expendable trash after all. who wouldn't want us to know that? the count was 2700 soldiers. i'm sure there's more. mebbe no one wants the comparison drawn of mass body graves of the past? cuz Bush started it and it was clearly never ended by the current administration? cuz it's beyond disgusting? i could go on and on.

The article on NPR said that it stopped in 2008. The WP article says between 2004-2008 as well. I don't know for sure, but it is my impression that it stopped in 2008. Probably when someone had to have someone from the Obama administration sign off which wasn't going to happen.

[persiphone]

Originally Posted by Diavolo

The article on NPR said that it stopped in 2008. The WP article says between 2004-2008 as well. I don't know for sure, but it is my impression that it stopped in 2008. Probably when someone had to have someone from the Obama administration sign off which wasn't going to happen.

thanks for that correction. my sheer disgust overpowered me in my response.

[persiphone]

so this was the response i got from the Senator in my home state after signing the petition on the National Defense Authorization Act.....

December 9, 2011





Ms. ********
730 ******* RD
******, NV *****-0325


Dear Ms. ******:


Thank you for contacting me about detainee provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. I appreciate hearing from you.


On January 22, 2009, President Obama signed a series of executive orders regarding national security policy. As you know, these directives ordered the eventual closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention center, which had become a potent recruiting symbol for anti-American militant extremists; established a process for determining which detainees can be brought to justice in other countries and which detainees can begin to be prosecuted for terrorist acts; and renewed America's commitment to prohibiting torture. These are tough and complex issues, but, like you, I believe very strongly that strengthening our fight against terrorists required these changes. Our military leaders, officials from our intelligence and diplomatic corps, and bipartisan members of Congress all believe that revising our detention and interrogation methods of suspected terrorists will lead more effectively to a strategic defeat of Al Qaeda and other global terrorist groups, and ultimately, a safer America.


In order to effectively combat terrorism within the complex legal and strategic landscape in which we operate, the Administration must also maintain maximum flexibility to apply each of the different tools in our counterterrorism toolbox for each different case in order to ensure intelligence is not lost, the public is not harmed, and terrorists are not set free. While this practical approach has been adopted by the current Administration, some in Congress continue to seek to tie the Administration's hands. As you noted, the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, as reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee, includes provisions that would, among other things, mandate the use of military custody for individuals suspected of terrorism-related offenses, even if arrested in the United States. In an important recent speech, Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan expressed the Administration's concerns about these provisions and other proposals in Congress to limit the Administration's flexibility in its approach to counterterrorism. He stated that under the approach advocated by some in Congress:


"[W]e would never be able to turn the page on Guantanamo. Our counterterrorism professionals would be compelled to hold all captured terrorists in military custody, casting aside our most effective and time-tested tool for bringing suspected terrorists to justice - our federal courts. .In sum, this approach would impose unprecedented restrictions on the ability of experienced professionals to combat terrorism, injecting legal and operational uncertainty into what is already enormously complicated work."


I have been working diligently to improve the detainee-related provisions in the legislation. After the Armed Services Committee first completed their work on the bill, I wrote to the Chair and Ranking Member of the Committee to express my concerns with the provisions and urge further changes. The Committee ultimately reported out a new version of the bill with significant improvements to the detainee provisions. Nevertheless, some important concerns remained.


During consideration of the bill on the Senate floor, I worked with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and others to secure passage of an amendment preventing application of the detention provisions in the bill to United States citizens, lawful resident aliens, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States (S.AMDT.1456). This amendment maintains the constitutional protections of due process and fair judicial proceedings for individuals arrested within the United States, and is an important addition to the bill.


Nevertheless, I am not satisfied that all of the concerns with the detainee provisions have been adequately addressed. As the bill proceeds to a House-Senate conference committee, you can be sure that I will continue to seek additional improvements. It is critical that we maintain a detention policy that gives our counterterrorism professionals the flexibility, capability, and resources they need to effectively apply all of our national security tools toward bringing terrorists to justice.


Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.


My best wishes to you.


Sincerely,
A
HARRY REID
United States Senator
Nevada


this feels like smoke up my ass.

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by persiphone

so this was the response i got from the Senator in my home state after signing the petition on the National Defense Authorization Act.....

December 9, 2011





Ms. ********
730 ******* RD
******, NV *****-0325


Dear Ms. ******:


Thank you for contacting me about detainee provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. I appreciate hearing from you.


On January 22, 2009, President Obama signed a series of executive orders regarding national security policy. As you know, these directives ordered the eventual closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention center, which had become a potent recruiting symbol for anti-American militant extremists; established a process for determining which detainees can be brought to justice in other countries and which detainees can begin to be prosecuted for terrorist acts; and renewed America's commitment to prohibiting torture. These are tough and complex issues, but, like you, I believe very strongly that strengthening our fight against terrorists required these changes. Our military leaders, officials from our intelligence and diplomatic corps, and bipartisan members of Congress all believe that revising our detention and interrogation methods of suspected terrorists will lead more effectively to a strategic defeat of Al Qaeda and other global terrorist groups, and ultimately, a safer America.


In order to effectively combat terrorism within the complex legal and strategic landscape in which we operate, the Administration must also maintain maximum flexibility to apply each of the different tools in our counterterrorism toolbox for each different case in order to ensure intelligence is not lost, the public is not harmed, and terrorists are not set free. While this practical approach has been adopted by the current Administration, some in Congress continue to seek to tie the Administration's hands. As you noted, the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, as reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee, includes provisions that would, among other things, mandate the use of military custody for individuals suspected of terrorism-related offenses, even if arrested in the United States. In an important recent speech, Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan expressed the Administration's concerns about these provisions and other proposals in Congress to limit the Administration's flexibility in its approach to counterterrorism. He stated that under the approach advocated by some in Congress:


"[W]e would never be able to turn the page on Guantanamo. Our counterterrorism professionals would be compelled to hold all captured terrorists in military custody, casting aside our most effective and time-tested tool for bringing suspected terrorists to justice - our federal courts. .In sum, this approach would impose unprecedented restrictions on the ability of experienced professionals to combat terrorism, injecting legal and operational uncertainty into what is already enormously complicated work."


I have been working diligently to improve the detainee-related provisions in the legislation. After the Armed Services Committee first completed their work on the bill, I wrote to the Chair and Ranking Member of the Committee to express my concerns with the provisions and urge further changes. The Committee ultimately reported out a new version of the bill with significant improvements to the detainee provisions. Nevertheless, some important concerns remained.


During consideration of the bill on the Senate floor, I worked with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and others to secure passage of an amendment preventing application of the detention provisions in the bill to United States citizens, lawful resident aliens, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States (S.AMDT.1456). This amendment maintains the constitutional protections of due process and fair judicial proceedings for individuals arrested within the United States, and is an important addition to the bill.


Nevertheless, I am not satisfied that all of the concerns with the detainee provisions have been adequately addressed. As the bill proceeds to a House-Senate conference committee, you can be sure that I will continue to seek additional improvements. It is critical that we maintain a detention policy that gives our counterterrorism professionals the flexibility, capability, and resources they need to effectively apply all of our national security tools toward bringing terrorists to justice.


Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.


My best wishes to you.


Sincerely,
A
HARRY REID
United States Senator
Nevada


this feels like smoke up my ass.

What a dick wad. Oops, did I just say that out loud?

[SoNotHer]

P.S. "Regardless of all my, and another other reasonable person's efforts, you're screwed."

Originally Posted by persiphone

so this was the response i got from the Senator in my home state after signing the petition on the National Defense Authorization Act.....

December 9, 2011





Ms. ********
730 ******* RD
******, NV *****-0325


Dear Ms. ******:


Thank you for contacting me about detainee provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. I appreciate hearing from you.


On January 22, 2009, President Obama signed a series of executive orders regarding national security policy. As you know, these directives ordered the eventual closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention center, which had become a potent recruiting symbol for anti-American militant extremists; established a process for determining which detainees can be brought to justice in other countries and which detainees can begin to be prosecuted for terrorist acts; and renewed America's commitment to prohibiting torture. These are tough and complex issues, but, like you, I believe very strongly that strengthening our fight against terrorists required these changes. Our military leaders, officials from our intelligence and diplomatic corps, and bipartisan members of Congress all believe that revising our detention and interrogation methods of suspected terrorists will lead more effectively to a strategic defeat of Al Qaeda and other global terrorist groups, and ultimately, a safer America.


In order to effectively combat terrorism within the complex legal and strategic landscape in which we operate, the Administration must also maintain maximum flexibility to apply each of the different tools in our counterterrorism toolbox for each different case in order to ensure intelligence is not lost, the public is not harmed, and terrorists are not set free. While this practical approach has been adopted by the current Administration, some in Congress continue to seek to tie the Administration's hands. As you noted, the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, as reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee, includes provisions that would, among other things, mandate the use of military custody for individuals suspected of terrorism-related offenses, even if arrested in the United States. In an important recent speech, Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan expressed the Administration's concerns about these provisions and other proposals in Congress to limit the Administration's flexibility in its approach to counterterrorism. He stated that under the approach advocated by some in Congress:


"[W]e would never be able to turn the page on Guantanamo. Our counterterrorism professionals would be compelled to hold all captured terrorists in military custody, casting aside our most effective and time-tested tool for bringing suspected terrorists to justice - our federal courts. .In sum, this approach would impose unprecedented restrictions on the ability of experienced professionals to combat terrorism, injecting legal and operational uncertainty into what is already enormously complicated work."


I have been working diligently to improve the detainee-related provisions in the legislation. After the Armed Services Committee first completed their work on the bill, I wrote to the Chair and Ranking Member of the Committee to express my concerns with the provisions and urge further changes. The Committee ultimately reported out a new version of the bill with significant improvements to the detainee provisions. Nevertheless, some important concerns remained.


During consideration of the bill on the Senate floor, I worked with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and others to secure passage of an amendment preventing application of the detention provisions in the bill to United States citizens, lawful resident aliens, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States (S.AMDT.1456). This amendment maintains the constitutional protections of due process and fair judicial proceedings for individuals arrested within the United States, and is an important addition to the bill.


Nevertheless, I am not satisfied that all of the concerns with the detainee provisions have been adequately addressed. As the bill proceeds to a House-Senate conference committee, you can be sure that I will continue to seek additional improvements. It is critical that we maintain a detention policy that gives our counterterrorism professionals the flexibility, capability, and resources they need to effectively apply all of our national security tools toward bringing terrorists to justice.


Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.


My best wishes to you.


Sincerely,
A
HARRY REID
United States Senator
Nevada


this feels like smoke up my ass.

[Cin]

Very interesting article. It touches on something I worry about especially with the increase of a privatized military presence - how the military is becoming the enforcement arm of the 1%.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/1754...%25_wars/#more

Fighting 1% Wars
Why Our Wars of Choice May Prove Fatal
By William J. Astore

America’s wars are remote. They’re remote from us geographically, remote from us emotionally (unless you’re serving in the military or have a close relative or friend who serves), and remote from our major media outlets, which have given us no compelling narrative about them, except that they’re being fought by “America’s heroes” against foreign terrorists and evil-doers. They’re even being fought, in significant part, by remote control -- by robotic drones “piloted” by ground-based operators from a secret network of bases located hundreds, if not thousands, of miles from the danger of the battlefield.

Their remoteness, which breeds detachment if not complacency at home, is no accident. Indeed, it’s a product of the fact that Afghanistan and Iraq were wars of choice, not wars of necessity. It’s a product of the fact that we’ve chosen to create a “warrior” or “war fighter” caste in this country, which we send with few concerns and fewer qualms to prosecute Washington’s foreign wars of choice.

The results have been predictable, as in predictably bad. The troops suffer. Iraqi and Afghan innocents suffer even more. And yet we don’t suffer, at least not in ways that are easily noticeable, because of that very remoteness. We’ve chosen -- or let others do the choosing -- to remove ourselves from all the pain and horror of the wars being waged in our name. And that’s a choice we’ve made at our peril, since a state of permanent remote war has weakened our military, drained our treasury, and eroded our rights and freedoms.

Wars of Necessity vs. Wars of Choice

World War II was a war of necessity. In such a war, all Americans had a stake. Adolf Hitler and Nazism had to be defeated; so too did Japanese militarism. Indeed, war goals were that clear, that simple, to state. For that war, we relied uncontroversially on an equitable draft of citizen-soldiers to share the burdens of defense.

Contrast this with our current 1% wars. In them, 99% of Americans have no stake. The 1% who do are largely ID-card-carrying members of what President Dwight D. Eisenhower so memorably called the “military-industrial complex” in 1961. In the half-century since, that web of crony corporations, lobbyists, politicians, and retired military types who have passed through Washington’s revolving door has grown ever more gargantuan and tangled, engorged by untold trillions devoted to a national security and intelligence complex that seemingly dominates Washington. They are the ones who, in turn, have dispatched another 1% -- the lone percent of Americans in our All-Volunteer Military -- to repetitive tours of duty fighting endless wars abroad.

Unlike previous wars of necessity, the mission behind our wars of choice is nebulous, confusing, and seems in constant flux. Is it a fight against terror (which, as so many have pointed out, is in any case a method, not an enemy)? A fight for oil and other strategic resources? A fight to spread freedom and democracy? A fight to build nations? A fight to show American resolve or make the world safe from al-Qaeda? Who really knows anymore, now that Washington seldom bothers to bring up the “why” question at all, preferring simply to fight on without surcease?

In wars of choice, of course, the mission is whatever our leaders choose it to be, which gives the citizenry (assuming we’re watching closely, which we’re not) no criteria with which to measure success, let alone determine an endpoint.

How do we know these are wars of choice? It’s simple: because we could elect to leave whenever we wanted or whenever the heat got too high, as is currently the case in Iraq (even if we are leaving behind a fortress embassy the size of the Vatican with a private army of 5,000 rent-a-guns to defend it), and as we are likely to do in Afghanistan sometime in the years after the 2012 presidential election. The choice is ours. The people without a choice are of course the Iraqis and Afghans whom we’ll leave to pick up the pieces.

Even our vaunted Global War on Terror is a war of choice. Think about it: Who has control over our own terror: us or our enemies? We can only be terrorized in the first place if we choose to give in to fear.

Think here of the “shoe bomber” in 2001 and the “underwear bomber” in 2009. Why did the criminally inept actions of these two losers garner so much attention (and fear-mongering) in the American media? As the self-confessed greatest and most powerful nation on Earth, shouldn’t we have shared a collective belly laugh at the absurdity and incompetence of those “attacks” and gone about our business?

Instead of laughing, of course, we allowed yet more American treasure to be poured into technology and screening systems that may never even have caught a terrorist. We consented to be surveilled ever more and consulted ever less. We chose to reaffirm our terrors every time we doffed our shoes or submitted supinely to being scoped or groped at our nation’s airports.

Our distant permanent wars, our 1% wars of choice, will remain remote from our emotions and our thinking, requiring few sacrifices except from our troops, who grow ever more remote from our polity. This is especially true of America’s young adults, between 18 and 29 years of age, who are the least likely to have family members in the military, according to a recent Pew Research Center study.

The result? An already emergent warrior-caste might grow ever more estranged from the 99%, creating tensions and encouraging grievances that quite possibly could be manipulated by that other 1%: the powerbrokers, money-makers, and string-pullers, already so eager to call out the police to bully and arrest occupy movements in numerous cities across this once-great land.

Our Military or Their Military?

As we fight wars of choice in distant lands for ever-shifting goals, what if “our troops” simply continue to grow ever more remote from us? What if they become “their” troops? Is this not the true terror we should be mobilizing as a nation to prevent? The terror of separating our military almost totally from our nation -- and ourselves.

As Admiral Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, put it recently to Time: “Long term, if the military drifts away from its people in this country, that is a catastrophic outcome we as a country can't tolerate.”

Behold a horrifying fate: a people that allows its wars of choice to compromise the very core of its self-image as a freedom-loving society, while letting itself be estranged from the young men and women who served in the frontlines of these wars.

Here’s an American fact: the 99% are far too remote from our wars of choice and those who fight them. To reclaim the latter, we must end the former. And that’s a war of necessity that has to be fought -- and won.

[Cin]

NPR Tries to Track Down Those Millionaire Job Creators
Friday 9 December 2011
by: Peter Hart, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting | Report

Dean Baker (12/9/11) flagged this NPR Morning Edition report today (12/9/11), and it's well worth a positivity.

In the debate over the payroll tax cut, Democrats want to pay for extending the tax break with a surtax on the wealthy. Republicans claim--usually without being challenged by reporters--that a surtax on millionaires would be an attack on job-creating small-business owners.

So NPR decided to go to GOP officials and ask to speak with these small-business-owning, millionaire job-creators. Turned out there was trouble finding any:

We wanted to talk to business owners who would be affected. So NPR requested help from numerous Republican congressional offices, including House and Senate leadership. They were unable to produce a single millionaire job creator for us to interview.

So we went to the business groups that have been lobbying against the surtax. Again, three days after putting in a request, none of them was able to find someone for us to talk to.

They did find a few wealthy business owners willing to talk--and they said their personal tax rate wasn't a factor in their hiring decisions.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

NPR Tries to Track Down Those Millionaire Job Creators
Friday 9 December 2011
by: Peter Hart, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting | Report

Dean Baker (12/9/11) flagged this NPR Morning Edition report today (12/9/11), and it's well worth a positivity.

In the debate over the payroll tax cut, Democrats want to pay for extending the tax break with a surtax on the wealthy. Republicans claim--usually without being challenged by reporters--that a surtax on millionaires would be an attack on job-creating small-business owners.

So NPR decided to go to GOP officials and ask to speak with these small-business-owning, millionaire job-creators. Turned out there was trouble finding any:

We wanted to talk to business owners who would be affected. So NPR requested help from numerous Republican congressional offices, including House and Senate leadership. They were unable to produce a single millionaire job creator for us to interview.

So we went to the business groups that have been lobbying against the surtax. Again, three days after putting in a request, none of them was able to find someone for us to talk to.

They did find a few wealthy business owners willing to talk--and they said their personal tax rate wasn't a factor in their hiring decisions.

Here is the link per request:
http://www.truth-out.org/npr-tries-t...ors/1323463415
There ya go.

I didn't post it originally because the story was really just that short.