Shariah Law NOW for EGYPT! LOOK IT UP IF YOUR CLUELESS TO WHAT SHARIAH LAW IS! If you get left behind I assure you that you will get a firm understanding then!

Egypt draft constitution sparks mass protest 

  

 

 

CAIRO (AP) -- Protesters flooded Cairo's Tahrir Square on Friday in the second giant rally this week, angrily vowing to bring down a draft constitution approved by allies of President Mohammed Morsi, as Egypt appeared headed toward a volatile confrontation between the opposition and ruling Islamists.

 

The protests have highlighted an increasingly cohesive opposition leadership of prominent liberal and secular politicians trying to direct public anger against Morsi and the Islamists - a contrast to the leaderless youth uprising last year which toppled autocrat Hosni Mubarak.

The opposition announced plans for an intensified street campaign of protests and civil disobedience and even a possible march on Morsi's presidential palace to prevent him from calling a nationwide referendum on the draft, which it must pass to come into effect. Top judges announced Friday they may refuse to monitor any referendum, rendering it invalid.

If a referendum is called, "we will go to him at the palace and topple him," insisted one protester, Yasser Said, a businessman who said he voted for Morsi in last summer's presidential election.

Islamists, however, are gearing up as well.

The Muslim Brotherhood, from which Morsi hails, drummed up supporters for its own mass rally Saturday. Islamists boasted their turnout would show that the public supports the push by the country's first freely elected president to quickly bring a constitution and provide stability after nearly two years of turmoil.

Brotherhood activists in several cities passed out fliers calling for people to come out and "support Islamic law." A number of Muslim clerics in Friday sermons in the southern city of Assiut called the president's opponents "enemies of God and Islam."

The week-old crisis has already seen clashes between the two camps that left two dead and hundreds injured. On Friday, Morsi opponents and supporters rained stones and firebombs on each other in the Mediterranean city of Alexandria and the southern city of Luxor.

The Islamist-led assembly that worked on the draft for months passed it in a rushed, 16-hour session that lasted until sunrise Friday.

The vote was abruptly moved up to pass the draft before Egypt's Constitutional Court rules on Sunday whether to dissolve the assembly. Liberal, secular and Christian members and secular members had already quit the council to protest what they call Islamists' hijacking of the process.

The draft is to be sent to Morsi on Saturday to decide on a date for a referendum, possibly in mid-December.

The draft has a distinctive Islamic bent - enough to worry many that civil liberties could be restricted, though its provisions for enforcing Shariah, or Islamic law, are not as firm as ultraconservatives wished.

Protests were first sparked when Morsi last week issued decrees granting himself sweeping powers that neutralized the judiciary. Morsi said the move was needed to stop the courts - where anti-Islamist or Mubarak-era judges hold many powerful posts - from dissolving the assembly and further delaying Egypt's transition.

Opponents, however, accused Morsi of grabbing near-dictatorial powers by sidelining the one branch of government he doesn't control.

Anger at Morsi even spilled over into a mosque where the Islamist president joined weekly Friday prayers. In his sermon, the mosque's preacher compared Morsi to Islam's Prophet Muhammad, saying the prophet had enjoyed far-reaching powers as leader, giving a precedent for the same to happen now.

"No to tyranny!" congregants chanted. Morsi took to the podium and told the worshippers that he too objected to the language of the sheik and that one-man rule contradicts Islam.

Friday's crowd in Tahrir appeared comparable in size to the more than 200,000 anti-Morsi protesters who thronged the central plaza three days earlier. Tens of thousands more marched Friday in Alexandria and other cities.

The atmosphere was festive, with fireworks going off and banners stretched over the crowd. One showed a popular pop star singing in a cartoon bubble, "Your constitution is void." More tents sprung up in the plaza's central traffic circle, as protesters sought to increase their week-old sit-in.

Large marches from around Cairo flowed into the square, chanting "Constitution: Void!" and "The people want to bring down the regime."

Figures from a new leadership coalition took the stage to address the crowds. The coalition, known as the National Salvation Front, includes prominent democracy advocate Nobel Peace laureate Mohamed ElBaradei, leftist Hamdeen Sabbahi and former Arab League chief Amr Moussa.

"We are determined to continue with all peaceful means, whatever it takes to defend our legitimate rights," ElBaradei told the crowd. He later posted on Twitter that Morsi and his allies are "staging a coup against democracy" and that the regime's legitimacy "is eroding."

Sabbahi vowed protests would go on until "we topple the constitution."

"The revolution is back ... We shall be victorious," said Sabbahi, who came in a surprisingly close third in the presidential election.

The coalition is aiming to rally together the disparate opposition factions, hoping to focus a movement that critics say failed to capitalize on its gains after Mubarak's fall. That they appear to have won a degree of acceptance among protesters is a significant shift, since mainstream liberal politicians were dismissed by many activists as out of touch, disorganized and out for their own interests.

ElBaradei's strong move to the fore is particularly notable. He was an inspiration for some of the youth in the 2011 anti-Mubarak uprising, but long appeared reluctant to play a leadership role and was criticized as remote and elitist.

The politicians still lack grassroots, warned Manal Tibe, a rights activist who was the first member of the constitutional assembly to withdraw in protest against the Islamists.

The street "is moving faster than the political opposition leaders," and some protesters worry they won't push strong enough demands, she said.

Protester Mohammed Taher, a 45-year-old computer engineer, said the rallies have been fueled by widespread outrage, not politicians' organizing. "People came here without a rallying machine," he said.

If the charter does go to a referendum, the politicians do not have the public reach or enough time to galvanize a "no" vote, she said.

The opposition also is counting on a revolt by the judiciary. Many judges have gone on strike, raising the possibility they would not serve as election monitors as required. Two top judicial bodies, the High Administrative Court and the State Council, said they would confer with the main Judges' Association on whether to monitor.

The Salvation Front warned on Friday that holding a referendum would "deal a deadly blow to the legitimacy of the president."

But if a referendum is held, the opposition faces the tough choice of whether to boycott - and risk sidelining itself - or trying to rally a "no" vote - and risk losing in the face of Islamists' powerful grassroots electoral machine.

The Brotherhood and harder-line Islamists won nearly 75 percent of the seats in last winter's parliament election. The Brotherhood's Morsi, however, won only about 25 percent in a first-round presidential vote and just over 50 percent in the runoff.

Safwat Hegazy, a hardline cleric allied to the Brotherhood, challenged the opposition in a Tweet to "go to the people in the referendum ... If the people are by your side and say no, we'll know who you are and who we are."

The opposition has been emboldened by the anger at the Brotherhood's rule after Morsi's edicts ignited criticism brewing for months that the group has used election victories to monopolize power in Egypt.

Many at Friday's protest mocked the constitutional assembly session, after watching it all night on television. During the marathon gathering, the 85 remaining members of the 100-member body voted on each of the more than 230 articles, passing all by wide margins.

The assembly's white-bearded president, Hossam al-Ghiryani, kept the voting at a rapid clip, badgering members to drop disputes and objections and move on.

At times the process appeared slap-dash, with fixes to missing phrasing and even several entirely new articles proposed, written and voted on in the wee hours of night.

In Tahrir on Friday, protesters carried signs reading, "Inside the Brotherhood kitchen, al-Ghiryani cooked the constitution."

Ahmed el-Kedwani, a spare parts shop owner, said he watched as well, adding despairingly, "These are the people who wrote the future of Egypt."

The Brotherhood " have been chasing the dream of ruling Egypt for 80 years and its only by blood that they will leave power," he said.

 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_EGYPT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-11-30-06-08-15 

Israeli Defense Chief Sounds Ready to Hit Iran, Thanks in Part to Iron Dome!

 

Israel’s retiring defense chief thinks Iran needs to be “coerced” in 2013 from building an atom bomb, despite any U.S. hopes that sanctions will bring Tehran to the negotiating table. And the recent success of his new, U.S.-funded missile defenses seems to have convinced him that Israel is better able than ever to deter its Iran-backed foes.

“Of course, we would love to see some heavenly intervention that will stop them, to wake up some morning and learn that they’ve given up on their nuclear intentions,” Barak told reporters at the Pentagon Thursday during a joint press conference with Leon Panetta, his American counterpart. “You cannot build a strategy based on these wishes or prayers. Sanctions are working and they are more hurting than anything I remember from the past vis-a-vis Iran, but I don’t believe these kinds of sanctions will bring the ayatollahs to a moment of truth where they sit around a table, look into each other’s eyes and decide that the game is over.”

Not exactly what Panetta wanted to hear during what was supposed to be a friendly press conference in which they celebrated how the U.S.-backed Iron Dome rocket defense system stopped Hamas’ rocket attacks cold. The U.S. defense chief, who effused over the retiring Barak as “a man of peace” and praised their long friendship, said the “unprecedented pressure” on Iran from international sanctions present “time and space for an effort to try to achieve a diplomatic solution.”

Not likely, thinks the retiring Barak. “During the coming year and hopefully before they reach what I have called a ‘zone of immunity’” — a point at which Israeli airstrike couldn’t meaningfully hinder Iranian nuclear work — Iran “will be coerced into putting an end to it this way or another way,” Barak said. “The physical attack option is an option that should be there, should remain on the table, never be removed.”

That may be short of a pledge to attack Iran next year, but it’s hardly a vote of confidence in any alternative. And it reflects a lingering divide in U.S. and Israeli goals on Iran, despite the rhetoric of unity. “We will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” Panetta said, “and that remains our policy.” Barak’s policy is different: to stop Iran from even getting to the point in its technological nuclear work where an airstrike is senseless, before Iran gets the bomb. The Israeli defense chief acknowledged “sometimes slight differences” with U.S. policy “that should be better discussed behind closed doors.”

However much Barak seems resigned to Iran’s determination “to go in the footsteps of Pakistan and North Korea,” he also mused out loud about Iron Dome as a security game-changer for Israel. Not because a system that was “extremely successful” at stopping unguided Qassam rockets can also stop Iranian Shahab-3 ballistic missiles — it can’t. But because of the demonstration effect that Israeli missile-defense technology can have on Iran and its proxies.

“The very knowing of the other side that you have such an effective system, especially when we’ll be equipped with many more interceptors, it will change the balance of contemplation on the other side,” Barak said. “It creates a logical kind of deterrent, not a psychological one, because any enemy that tries against Israel is exposed to the effectiveness of our efforts that we’ve seen during in this operation.” Especially since, Barak noted, Iron Dome’s big brothers — David’s Sling and the Arrow — are in development to stop more powerful missiles launched by Iran and Hezbollah.

Barak won’t be defense minister next year, as he announced this week he’s retiring from politics. But if other prominent Israeli decision-makers think that Iron Dome restored Israel’s ability to deter adversaries, imagine the value they might place on an Iran attack next year. 

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/barak/

The Dr. Of commonsense E.T. Williams says Christmas Should Not Offend YOU!

                    www.whateverhappentocommonsense.com

OUR INTERNET DAYS ARE NUMBERED!

Free Internet Under Fire

U.S. to oppose Russian plan to give U.N. control of Internet

 

The United States will seek to block an “alarming” Russian proposal to give a United Nations telecommunications group control over the Internet, a senior State Department official said on Thursday.

“We will actively oppose the Russian proposal,” Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation to a U.N. conference in Dubai, told reporters.

“I have to say, out of all the proposals that have come in, the Russian one candidly is the most shocking and most disappointing in terms of achieving the success that we are seeking globally,” he said.

A Russian government proposal to amend a U.N. treaty at a meeting of the world body’s World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai next week contains a provision that calls for bringing “IP-based networks” under U.N. control.

The U.N. treaty, called the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITR), is currently limited to regulating international telecommunications services.

The Russian proposal to amend the treaty has the support of other non-democratic states such as China and Iran.

A copy of the Russian proposal was made public on Nov. 13. It states that “the [proposed] additions to the ITRs … are aimed at formulating an approach that views the Internet as a global physical telecommunications infrastructure, and also as a part of the national telecommunications infrastructure of each Member State,” according to Cnet news.

The conference will be held from Dec. 3 to 14 in Dubai.

Kramer said in a conference call with news reporters that the Dubai conference is not supposed to be focused on Internet governance.

“If you look at the Russian proposal, it’s clearly focused on Internet governance,” he said. “It would basically move to governments the right to route traffic, to review content, and say that’s all a completely national matter—an extremely important precedent it would set for opening the doors, again, to more censorship.”

The Internet giant Google is opposing efforts by the U.N. to control the Internet through the Dubai conference.

“A free and open world depends on a free and open Internet,” Google said in a statement on a website it created called Take Action. “The ITU is the wrong place to make decisions about the future of the Internet.”

Governments have enacted 19 new laws that threaten online free expression over the last two years, the statement said.

Some of the proposals in Dubai would lead to censorship and curtailing Internet access while others will force services like YouTube, Facebook, and Skype to pay tolls to connect around the world, Google said.

Kramer said the Russian proposal was one of several proposals “that are alarming.”
Other proposals seek an “invasive approach of governments into managing the Internet, in managing the content that goes via the Internet, what people are looking at, what they’re saying, et cetera,” he said.

“These fundamentally violate everything that we believe in in terms of democracy and opportunities for individuals, and we’re going to vigorously oppose any proposals of that nature,” Kramer said.
Other proposals call for setting up pricing regimes that would force Internet providers to pay to have traffic delivered abroad.

“If you can think about the implications of this, today much of what we get via the Internet is free,” Kramer said. “In these models, there would now be a paid model.”

Other issues to be discussed at the Dubai meeting will include cyber security and include potentially damaging provisions.

“This is an area that is a critical challenge that we’ve got to protect our networks from malware and hacking, etc.,” Kramer said. “But many of the proposals we’ve seen seem to open the door for content censorship, for routing of traffic, and the ability of governments to control what’s happening on those networks. And again, we find that concerning.”

The U.S. delegation to the conference will push for affordable broadband and Internet access around the world.

Kramer said in dealing with cyber threats that U.S. delegates would push to be “very, very careful about who we assign to deal with these issues.”

China is one state that has been actively working to limit Internet freedom. Chinese censors are among the most advanced at restricting free speech and online content for its estimated 500 million Internet users.

“The Chinese method for controlling social-media content—restricting access to international networks while coercing their domestic alternatives to robustly censor and monitor user communications according to the ruling Chinese Communist Party directives—has become a particularly potent model for other authoritarian countries,” according to a study made public in September by the Freedom House.

China proposed taking control away from the current administrator of the web, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and giving it to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) last year.

“Governments alone should not determine the future of the Internet,” the Google statement said. “The billions of people around the globe that use the Internet, and the experts that build and maintain it, should be included.”

However, the ITU meeting is limited to government participants and includes representatives of governments “that do not support a free and open Internet,” Google said.

“Engineers, companies, and people that build and use the web have no vote,” the statement said. “The ITU is also secretive. The treaty conference and proposals are confidential.”

Author Arthur Herman wrote in the current issue of Commentary that the U.N. conference poses dangers to Internet freedom.

If new restrictions are codified at the conference, “In short, governance of cyberspace will pass from the country that has kept it free and accessible since its creation—the United States—to the same organization that gave us the financial scandals at UNESCO, voted to designate Zionism as racism, and seated China, Syria, and Muammur Qaddafi’s Libya on its Commission on Human Rights,” Herman wrote.

Kramer said he has been reaching out to nations that support the U.S. position on an open and free Internet in preparation for the meeting.

“We’re getting some positive messages from our partners, then we’re going to hope that there won’t be adverse proposals coming out of this,” he said.

Kramer said he does not believe the ITU should be dismantled and has done some important work on the sharing of information and developmental activities.

Countering the proposals form “nondemocratic” nations is “worrisome,” he said, but “I don’t believe per se that dismantling the ITU is the way to effectively solve that.”

The first priority for the United States at the Dubai conference will be to steer the focus toward telecommunications issues and away from Internet controls, Kramer said.

For the telecommunications treaty, public providers such as AT&T and Verizon Wireless should be involved in discussing regulations, he said.

“This should not be the charter to review private networks, Internet networks, cloud computing networks, and on the other side, government networks,” he said. “That’s not the charter of this treaty.”

Key U.S. backers at the conference include nations from North and South America, Europe, and Asia.

“And there’s a variety of nations that are still forming their positions or we have some disagreement with and we’re going to spend time with and hopefully reach alignment on these common principles about liberalization and internet success,” Kramer said.

http://freebeacon.com/free-internet-under-fire/

WHAT DOES OUR BUDGET HAVE TO DO WITH ENDTIME PROPHECY? The bible says that the dollar will collapse when we are in these days! NOW FOR YOU WHO SAID POLITICS AND FRIENDS DON'T MIX, you better mix them because it is our job to witness and win people over to GOD!

Nation mired in debt, Obamas set to take another $4 million Hawaiian vacation

 

On Wednesday, Hawaii News Now (HNN) reported that residents in Kailua Bay just received notice that a security zone is being established, requiring families to submit the names of guests expected at their homes over the Christmas holiday.
 
The inconvenience has become an annual affair for homeowners in the area, as the Obamas have spent the last five Christmas seasons there.
 

Resident Rick Stack told HNN: "There is a lot of traffic on the street from the president's motorcade. The Secret Service sets up at the entrance to our neighborhood and checks ID's when you come through."

 

The First Family is expected to arrive on or around December 17th and stay through January 6th.
So, how much will the trip cost the taxpayers?
 
The exact cost is never actually announced, but the cost of flying Air Force One alone, is $181,757 per hour (based on 2011 U.S. Air Force figures), making the cost for the nine-hour flight from Washington to Hawaii and back again a whopping $3,271,611.
 

 ...let’s not forget that a USAF C-17 cargo plane is also needed to bring Presidential limos, helicopters and other essentials along. This, too, comes at the tune of thousands of dollars. Plus, there’s security for the president and his family. A team of between four and six Marine Corps will travel along on a separate flight and require per diem and hotel, coming in at $258,000 (estimated).

The Obamas do cover the expense for their own private beach-front home in Kailua, Oahu, which costs up to $3,500 per day ($75,000 per month). However, taxpayers are responsible for housing monies associated with the U.S. Secret Service, Coast Guart and Navy Seals. There are seven houses needed to accommodate these individuals, which amounts to about $21,600 per home.

 

Read about the costs in more detail...

Depending on exactly which day the Obamas arrive and whether or not any member of the First Family arrives or departs on a separate flight, as Michelle Obama did last year on a military flight, estimated to cost taxpayers $100,000...the entire trip will cost this cash-strapped nation well over $4 million.

As the country slips deeper and deeper into debt and the so-called Fiscal Cliff deadline is set to hit on December 31...It is more than a little disgusting for the president to take such a luxurious vacation, or any vacation, at our expense.

Don't think so?

Then consider the fact that Obama is taking this trip which would make any sultan blush, only a few weeks after low-income college students were notified that the Obama administration has cut the Pell Grant program by 33 percent.

Yes, that is yet another item the mainstream press refused to cover before the election!

http://www.examiner.com/article/nation-mired-debt-obamas-set-to-take-another-4-million-hawaiian-vacation

Russia ramps up NATO shield demands!

 

Moscow’s permanent representative to NATO has informed his colleagues in the military alliance that Russia needs clear technical documentation that the US missile defense will not pose a security risk for his country.

Russia says it wants solid guarantees “expressed in a legally-binding manner” that the US missile defense shield will never target Russian territory, Aleksandr Grushko said on Friday. He stressed, however, that the document should not be draped in the “language of political declarations,” but in clear military-technical fashion.

Moscow needs an assurance that the system is specifically designed to counter potential missile threats outside the Euro-Atlantic area without undermining the strategic balance, that is, intercept Russian strategic nuclear weapons, he added.

"Today, they offer us missile defense cooperation without understanding its ultimate goal," he said. "We believe that first it is necessary to reach an agreement on the framework of this cooperation.”

The technical data provided to Russia should include geographical location of interceptors, radars, the speed of warheads and many other elements that are absolutely clear to the military, Grushko noted.

The Russian envoy to NATO admitted that the debate over the US missile defense shield is “practically deadlocked,” and the negotiation process within the framework of the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) has come to a standstill.

Neverthless, Grushko said there still remains a “window of opportunity” and a crisis may be avoided if the necessary amount of “political will is demonstrated.”Progress is possible, he said.

The envoy also mentioned recent computer exercises involving “theater missile defense operations,” which took place in Germany this year that “proved the advantage of a joint missile defense system between Russia and NATO.”

"If we reach an agreement on missile defense, it would mean that Russia and NATO are really pooling their resources for the sake of common security," Grushko concluded.

http://rt.com/politics/russia-nato-missile-defense-us-958/

NDAA 2013: White House and Senate fight over indefinite detention

A reprise of last year’s war in Washington over whether or not Americans can be indefinitely detained without trial is occurring already. The Senate has approved a measure that voids parts of the 2012 NDAA, but the White House says they plan to veto.
 Just hours before lawmakers in the US Senate overwhelming voted in favor of an amendment that will challenge controversial provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, the Obama administration cited seemingly unrelated sections of the annual Pentagon spending bill as the reasoning behind a planned veto.

Last year, staffers working directly under Pres. Barack Obama said they’d recommend the commander-in-chief reject the 2012 NDAA because of certain provisions that provided the Executive Branch the power to indefinitely hold any US citizen in military prison for mere suspicious of ties to terrorism. Despite his office’s assurance that the NDAA would not be authorized as written, Pres. Obama signed his name to the bill on December 31, 2011, all the while acknowledging that he had reservations about the sections that stripped away habeas corpus from US citizens. Even still, the White House has been adamantly fighting in federal appeals court for the right to continue having the ability, despite a district judge having already called that part of the act unconstitutional.
 
Now as next year’s bill is being scrutinized in Congress, lawmakers in the Senate this Thursday agreed to pass by a vote of 67 to 29 a measure sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) that applied civil liberty protections to US persons who could be detained under the current NDAA.

"An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention,” the senator’s amendment reads.
 
"I know this is a sensitive subject, but I really believe we stand on the values of our country, and the value of our country is justice for all," she told her colleagues on the Senate floor.
 
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), an avid critic of the NDAA, said the passing of Feinstein’s amendment has signaled a “victory” in a year-long effort to keep indefinite detention without charge or trial off the books.
 
“Let’s don't play any games with any aspect and really believe that any Supreme Court in the United States, whether appointed by a Republican or a Democrat, is going to say that an American citizen does not have a right to trial by jury,” he said.
 
Now with the Senate’s approval of Sen. Feinstein’s amendment, the indefinite detention provisions from the 2012 NDAA stand a chance of being stripped off next year’s bill. Citing completely unrelated reasons, though, the Obama White House said on Thursday that the president is not likely to accept the defense bill in its current form.
 
According to the White House, the impetus behind Pres. Obama’s reluctance this time around isn’t that a veto will reauthorize his ability to imprison his own citizens without charge. Instead, the administration argues that separate provisions on the current draft of the NDAA would hinder Pres.
Obama’s efforts to relocate the foreign terror suspects currently held at the United States’ military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
 
“When he signed past versions of this legislation, the president objected to the restrictions carried forward by section 1031, promised to work towards their repeal, and warned the Congress that the restrictions on transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay to foreign countries would in certain circumstances interfere with constitutional responsibilities committed to the Executive Branch,” reads a statement published this week from the White House Office of Management and Budget.
 
"Since these restrictions have been on the books, they have limited the Executive's ability to manage military operations in an ongoing armed conflict, harmed the country's diplomatic relations with allies and counterterrorism partners and provided no benefit whatsoever to our national security.”
 
Under the latest draft of the 2013 NDAA, the Pentagon will be prohibited from using governmental funds to relocate Gitmo detainees to a new facility in the US. The president vowed on the campaign trail leading up to the November 6 election that he would close the infamous military prison under a second term in office, but that promise was one he also waged back in 2008 with so far no sign of following though. Now a renewed interest in shutting-down Gitmo is being used by the White House to justify the administration’s refusal to accept a bill that challenges the draconian legislation that he signed into law and has fought adamantly in appeals court to uphold since.
 
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), a key figure in getting the indefinite detention provision added to the 2012 NDAA, insisted this week on renewed authorization of that clause while also advocating the continued operation of Guantanamo. Defending America’s current powers to prosecute suspected terrorists by any means necessary, Sen. Graham said both indefinite detention and a prison at Gitmo need remain options on the table for the sake of advancing American dominance in overseas military efforts.
 
"When you're fighting a war, the goal is not to prosecute people, the goal is to win," Grahamsaid.
 
"How do you win a war? You kill them, you capture them and you interrogate them to find out what they're up to next."
 
“Simply stated, the American people don’t want to close Guantanamo Bay, which is an isolated, military-controlled facility, to bring these crazy bastards that want to kill us all to the United States,” he told fellow senators during Thursday’s vote. “Most Americans believe that the people at Guantanamo Bay are not some kind of burglar or bank robber. They are bent on our destruction. And I stand with the American people that we’re under siege, we’re under attack and we’re at war.”
 
Even if the White House was to agree with Sen. Graham’s take, Pres. Obama’s current plans call for ending the only war the United States is officially fighting — the 11-year-long operation in Afghanistan — by 2014. Just this week, however, it was revealed that as many as 10,000 US troops may stay station in Afghanistan for the undeterminable future to assist in so-called stabilization efforts.
 
On his part, Sen. Rand Paul rebuffed Sen. Graham’s comments by remarking, “Since I know this record of this debate will be widely read, that I want to make formal objection to the ‘crazy bastards standard.’”
 
“I don’t really think that if we’re going to have a ‘crazy bastards’ standard that we shouldn’t have a right to trial by jury, because if we’re going to lock up all the crazy bastards, for goodness sakes, would you not want, if you’re a crazy bastard, to have a right to trial by jury?” said Paul.
 
Before Sen. Feinstein’s amendment was approved this week, the most recent revision of the 2013 NDAA including a passage reaffirming every American’s right to habeas corpus. The complete defense bill must successfully pass through Congress before Pres. Obama can sign it. In all, the bill outlines spending for the Department of Defense during the next fiscal year and is crucial for figuring out expenses for the entire military complex. Presidents Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush have each vetoed an NDAA during their administrations.

 

http://rt.com/usa/news/ndaa-veto-guantanamo-detention-993/