Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

KansDem

(28,498 posts)
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:29 PM Sep 2012

"...they want to be able to call in the Army."

Unsettling supposition by Chris Hedges last week on Democracy Now! The report was on indefinite detention:

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/9/18/obama_admin_appeals_ndaa_ruling_in

The Obama administration has filed an emergency appeal of a federal judge’s decision to block a controversial statute that gave the government the power to carry out indefinite detention. Judge Katherine Forrest ruled against a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, authorizing the imprisonment of anyone deemed a terrorism suspect anywhere in the world without charge or trial. A group of journalists, scholars and political activists had brought the case, arguing the provision was so broad it could easily infringe on freedom of speech. In a court filing on Monday, the government argued Judge Forrest’s ruling could go beyond the statute itself to curb the indefinite provisions contained in the legislation authorizing the so-called post-9/11 "War on Terror," potentially jeopardizing the imprisonment of foreigners in Afghanistan without charge. We look at the Obama administration’s support for indefinite detention at home and abroad with Empty Wheel blogger Marcy Wheeler.

Mr. Hedges comment came during an interview between Amy Goodman and Marcy Wheeler during which the two women discussed the NDAA.

AMY GOODMAN: One of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the NDAA is Chris Hedges, a former foreign correspondent for the New York Times. He discussed the lawsuit earlier this year. He talked about it on Democracy Now!

CHRIS HEDGES: And I think we have to ask, if the security establishment did not want this bill, and the FBI Director Mueller actually goes to Congress and says publicly they don’t want it, why did it pass? What pushed it through? And I think, without question, the corporate elites understand that things, certainly economically, are about to get much worse. I think they’re worried about the Occupy movement expanding. And I think that, in the end—and this is a supposition—they don’t trust the police to protect them, and they want to be able to call in the Army.


"Call in the Army?"
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"...they want to be able to call in the Army." (Original Post) KansDem Sep 2012 OP
Wouldn't surprise me one bit ArcticFox Sep 2012 #1
It wouldn't be the first time :( arcane1 Sep 2012 #2
Our Army has been protecting corporate interests throughout the empire since Korea so this would jwirr Sep 2012 #3
Duh tama Sep 2012 #4
I agree with them and I think a great deal of it is predicated on roguevalley Sep 2012 #5

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
3. Our Army has been protecting corporate interests throughout the empire since Korea so this would
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:19 PM
Sep 2012

just be another step.

 

tama

(9,137 posts)
4. Duh
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:50 PM
Sep 2012

Hedges has been reporting on public uprisings and revolutions all over the world, from DDR to Egypt. So he knows very well that when choice comes and police and/or army refuse to shoot protestors, it's game over for the oligarchs. In US cops have stronger ties to their local communities than army. Not even draft army but professional mercenary army.

roguevalley

(40,656 posts)
5. I agree with them and I think a great deal of it is predicated on
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:31 PM
Sep 2012

the intell that they get that really tells the story on climate change and the hell coming. Soon.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»"...they want to be ...