Well it seems like there is a possibility that the NDAA is reactionary to occupy. And now that I look at it, it’s starting to make sense. First of all, we have to look at the threats that the US has in this day and age. First we should look at terrorism. Al Qaeda in it’s former shell is for all intents and purposes, dead. Bin Laden was killed, most of the leaders were either captured or killed. So where is the terrorist threat? We haven’t had one since 9/11 and now they have this National Defense Authorization Act. Is it anything new? No. Infact this bill has been enacted for the past 48 years. The difference with this year’s version is the obvious allowance of US troops to arrest civilians and detain them forever. That is an extreme jump from last year. But where is the terrorist threat that caused it?
Well here is the cynical theory. It’s occupy. For 3 months, protestors have been protesting against both government and corporatism. The media tried to slam them, that didn’t work. They removed the camps, that didn’t work. They tried police brutality, it backfired on them. The occupy protests are widespread, they are numerous, they are well organized and they are able to outsmart the government. Where else can they go? Well this is where I think the NDAA comes in. It is a bipartisan legislation that has passed with a 2/3rds majority in both chambers of congress. Which means that Obama has to sign it. Though fortunately it seems like he is holding off on that. Now you would think this theory is crazy. It is and I don’t want to believe it. However I am questioning what else is going on and why even the most liberal of congressmen and senators voted for this bill. I mean unless there is an imminent nuclear threat about to plague us, then there is no other reason to go to such extreme measures.
There is however a light at the end of the tunnel on this. Let’s assume that the NDAA passes and it is targeted against Occupy. If the government starts to brand protestors as terrorists and haul them off, people will get pissed. Then let’s assume the protests turn into a riot and soldiers shoot some protestors like they did at Kent State, then there is no hope for the government. Very few people will trust them. So why do such a thing? Well this is where it gets scary. I assume that with the approval rating of 9% (It’s probably way lower now), congressmen are in the stages of grieving just like if they are dying or they lost someone. They are probably seeing their last term anyway. So why not fight it? For them, it could very well backfire, but then again. What will happen if it backfires? Lose the election? They are already going to lose in great numbers anyway. People are pissed. So I assume that this is either a final fuck you to the people or it is a final sollution to end their opposition. Obama threatened to veto the bill, but it passed in such margin, he can’t. The only hope really is SCOTUS and these are the same justices who ended the limit on campaign donations.