Is NDAA here to end occupy?

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.

  1. #1 by Larry Bergan on December 18, 2011 - 5:08 am

    The congresspersons have painted themselves in and are dangerous as hell. They may be wrong on every front, but they still hold the purse strings which means almost everything in our once great country.

    SCOTUS didn’t believe that the American people had the right to elect their president in 2000, so we ended up with what they gave us.

    In 2004, the rascals made sure they “won” by a slight margin which ensured no threat of recounts. It was a lot of work, but it payed well enough and nobody had gone to prison up to that time for that sort of thing, so why not?

    Hand mark and hand count the actual ballots in the box in 2012 to prevent using the last box – if you know what I mean.

    Nice post Nathan.

  2. #2 by Larry Bergan on December 18, 2011 - 5:34 am

    Here’s another idea I had which could have some merit with a little creative tweaking from somebody and would cost almost nothing for the non-wealthy.

    Obvious problems are evident, but it is a fact that the Diebold banking system works almost flawlessly, while the voting division is/was a joke.

    I must continue to grapple, because it’s all I have until honorable people in the congress speak up. Virtually all of them on both sides voted for the unverifiable machines.

  3. #3 by Rico on December 18, 2011 - 8:19 am

    It’s not that Obama can’t veto the legislation, it’s that he won’t veto the legislation. He’s too much of a boot-licking pussy.

  4. #4 by cav on December 18, 2011 - 9:55 am

    I want to point out it has not been established beyond doubt just WHO the terrorist likely to be imprisoned by this new law are. 99% are suggesting the prisons need not be too large – perhaps having a capacity to hold a couple of thousand max. The military are not solely disposed to the service of criminal banker / corporate types. And if given the chance would come down on civilians of a genre that would surprise a great many of us.

    Dick Cheney…are you listening?

  5. #5 by Larry Bergan on December 18, 2011 - 10:07 am

    Laws are like musical chairs.

    Round and round we go. Where it stops is anybody’s guess.

  6. #7 by Richard Warnick on December 18, 2011 - 12:26 pm


    I think its an exaggeration to say ATMs are almost flawless. But when they mess up (e.g. debit your account without dispensing any money) you have a means to fix it. Unlike e-voting.


    It’s astounding how Congress can get away with enacting wildly unpopular and unconstitutional bills. Then President Obama, who ran for office as a defender of the Constitution, signs them into law. And everybody in Washington wonders why their poll numbers go down.

    Some say the Supreme Court can overturn indefinite detention without charges. But how is it possible for someone imprisoned without the right of habeas corpus or access to a lawyer to take a case to the Supreme Court? Such people are simply “disappeared” in the South American tradition.

  7. #8 by Larry Bergan on December 18, 2011 - 12:46 pm


    If people can send their guy/gal just three bucks and show up with a receipt to prove it, in droves; they can’t say we’re conspiracy theorists.

    A theory of mine.

    God help Alan Grayson or Ron Paul.

  8. #9 by Karmen on December 18, 2011 - 1:11 pm

    My political anxiety just went into the red zone! I now need to go to CTA (aka Conspiracy Theory Anonymous) as I need to stand and say, “my name is Karmen and I now believe in Consp. Theory.” Help!

  9. #10 by Larry Bergan on December 18, 2011 - 2:50 pm

    Voting on E-machines is worse then a Post-hypnotic suggestion.

    Neither exists in reality.

    Voting doesn’t need to cost billions in our country. This is a cost we can CUT.

    Hand mark and hand count in full public view.

    Idiotic votes will correct themselves with time because it will be evident they don’t work. At this point, we have nothing to lose.

  10. #11 by Frank Stearch on December 20, 2011 - 9:37 am

    Suffice it to say..the little camp out is done..coming campground for OWS? A FEMA detention/re-education camp.

  11. #12 by Nathan Erkkila on December 20, 2011 - 1:24 pm

    Frank: If the military does so much as lay a finger on OWS, then I doubt that will favor congress. I think it simply indicates a last ditch effort on their part.

    • #13 by Glenden Brown on December 20, 2011 - 3:47 pm

      I assume you read Lemony Snicket’s quote about OWS:

      Historically, a story about people inside impressive buildings ignoring or even taunting people standing outside shouting at them turns out to be a story with an unhappy ending.

      He’s right. I’m not sure this has a happy ending. Johan Galtung predicted the end America’s empire would involve a period of fascism – bearing in mind he was using the term correctly he was talking about an authoritarian state idealizing the “Nation” and seeking to create an ideologically and morally pure nation. In the case of the US, you can see some proto fascist tendencies on the right with notions of the “real” America and “real” Americans which are based around a conservative identity politics alongside notions that we need to morally purify America.

      That said, I also think it’s important to recognize that some of the portions of NDAA are based in authentic fear of terrorism – let me be clear the fear itself is real, it’s simply not realistic. Strange as it may sound, there are people who actually believe it will be necessary for some Americans to be locked up as terrorists because they have allied themselves with terrorists. And the fear these folks feel is nearly paralyzing, they will gladly welcome the potential of such arrests if it alleviates their fear of terrorism.

      • #14 by Glenden Brown on December 20, 2011 - 3:53 pm

        Here’s an interesting interview with Galtung.

        Two key points:

        Bush was elected president, and his narrow vision, his fundamentalism, made me cut it by five years, because I saw him as an accelerator, which he certainly did, launching three wars — war on terrorism, war on Afghanistan and war on Iraq. Now, this comes after the US did not win 1953 in Korea and lost 30 April, 1975 in Vietnam. In other words, we are now in war number five of major significance. That is typical for the decline of the empire that it goes like that.

        If you try to dominate the world economically, militarily, politically and culturally at the same time, and then having these four support each other, it cannot last for a long time. And that’s the phase we are in now. Now, in that period, there will be fascist reactions. It’s not impossible that it could be a military coup in the US from the right, not impossible within this period. But, you see, I am much more optimistic than that: I think that the US is in for a blossoming period. Look at what happened to England when it got rid of its empire from 1965 on. . . . You see the same in France. You see it in Italy.

        You look at you see a series of largely pointless wars. An empire frantically trying to hold onto control. In terms of resources, the US could spend money far more effectively if we spent on programs of social uplift what we spend maintaining military bases worldwide.

  12. #15 by Frank Stearch on December 20, 2011 - 3:34 pm

    Sounds like whistling past the graveyard to me.

  13. #16 by Richard Warnick on December 20, 2011 - 4:31 pm

    We are spending 7 percent of GDP on the military. The cost of the post-9/11 wars is estimated at $3.3 trillion.

    More of us die each year from dog bites than from terrorism. OTOH health care is a matter of life and death for millions of Americans. Why not spend $100 billion a year on health care instead of on unwinnable wars, which probably increase the terrorist threat anyway?

  14. #17 by Frank Stearch on December 20, 2011 - 4:55 pm

    “Why not spend $100 billion a year on health care instead of on unwinnable wars, which probably increase the terrorist threat anyway”?

    Probably because you are a drone and account for nothing in the calculus of those in power. The unwinnable wars and increased threats of terror is beneficial, as it creates the reasons to further strip you of your rights and rip you off.

  15. #18 by Nathan Erkkila on December 20, 2011 - 5:39 pm

    Frank: Then what do you suspect will happen to public relation if the military interfered with occupy?

  16. #19 by cav on December 20, 2011 - 10:13 pm

    Since generating new enemies keeps our military busy and relevant, a number of efforts will be, and have been made to convert the OWS in to the ‘enemy de jour’ – Nathan, contending the real enemy is the super wealthy is more than valid. Fortunately, many of the returning soldiers, who may be tasked with suppressing the locals aren’t too big on the idea themselves. Many of them see it your way and will be more ready to rip into the bank trash than the protesters. Unfortunately, others, being the tools of their training, will follow orders as they are given. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.

  17. #20 by cav on December 20, 2011 - 10:46 pm

    Because you can never be too paranoid:

  18. #21 by Larry Bergan on December 20, 2011 - 10:57 pm

    The precedent would dictate that as many levels of deceit as possible be used; meaning that people would be taken under other means which would not relate to the OWS movement which never violated the constitution.

    Oh, Let’s say, perhaps:

    Smoking weeds.

    Rockefeller laws come to mind.

  19. #22 by Frank Stearch on December 21, 2011 - 7:25 am

    The bulk of the public will lay down like lambs and watch OWS get clubbed like a baby seals.

    Moot point anyway, yesterday in Denver the cops came in sequestered the protesters, more or less cornered them, while city workers confiscated their possessions and then dispersed the trouble they were herded away like the lambs they are.

  20. #23 by Ken on December 23, 2011 - 12:34 pm

    Occupiers who were arrested in Los Angeles can avoid jail time by paying $355 to a private company for “Free Speech training” to learn what rights they do not have.

    Free speech is only free if you exercise it in approved ways.

  21. #24 by brewski on December 23, 2011 - 4:39 pm

    I am in L.A. right now and I saw that in the Times. Pretty damned funny.

  22. #25 by Larry Bergan on December 23, 2011 - 6:06 pm

    Occupiers who know a lot more about free speech then congress can sign up with something called, “American Justice Associates” 🙂

    American Justice Associates in Van Nuys, CA is a private company categorized under Lawyers and Attorneys. Our records show it was established in 2001 and incorporated in California. Current estimates show this company has an annual revenue of $170,000 and employs a staff of approximately 2.

    Not bad work if you can find it, huh?

  23. #26 by brewski on December 23, 2011 - 10:36 pm

    This is what happens when you don’t know the difference between free speech and destroying a park.

  24. #27 by Larry Bergan on December 23, 2011 - 11:21 pm

    brewski/noname doesn’t know the difference between leaving tent impressions in a park and destroying entire rain forests.

  25. #28 by Rico on December 24, 2011 - 7:32 am

    I am in L.A. right now and I saw that in the Times. Pretty damned funny.

    Why is that funny?

  26. #29 by Rico on December 24, 2011 - 7:53 am

    “And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.’

  27. #30 by brewski on December 24, 2011 - 12:53 pm

    The “damage” is according to the far left city council, not me:

  28. #31 by Larry Bergan on December 24, 2011 - 1:50 pm

    Sue them dry!

    That’l show them!

    What side are you on brew?

  29. #32 by brewski on December 24, 2011 - 10:05 pm

    I’m on the side of the individual.

    Larry, Merry Christmas to you and yours. Sincerely.

  30. #33 by Larry Bergan on December 27, 2011 - 5:55 pm


    Missed Christmas greeting, but have a happy new year!

  31. #34 by Rico on December 31, 2011 - 7:49 pm

    It’s not that Obama can’t veto the legislation, it’s that he won’t veto the legislation. He’s too much of a boot-licking pussy.

    I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so.

    Merry Effin’ New Year.

  32. #35 by cav on December 31, 2011 - 10:06 pm

    Obama “I reject any approach that would mandate”

    ‘Just sign the bill boy!’ His handlers.

  33. #36 by Frank Stearch on January 2, 2012 - 6:59 am

    Sieg Heil Obama!!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: