Before It’s News – by Josey Wales
Americans have been conditioned to accept the loss of life in distant lands, news of drone strikes killing wedding parties and innocent civilians, are spread all over the media. This is a form of conditioning.
In the video below from StormCloudsGathering, you will see just how we as Americans are conditioned to accept the killing of innocent men, women and children, while we sit in our warm homes watching Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus on TV.
But now Obama and his administration announces that they can kill Americans without due process, without a trial. This is yet more conditioning for the American people to accept in their daily lives.
On Thursday President Obama signed into law the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a sweeping defense policy bill, which includes some improvements in terms of civil liberties and human rights on its previous two iterations. However, a number of provisions — as in the 2012 and 2013 NDAAs — should keep civil libertarians concerned.
Meanwhile the troubling NDAA provision first signed into law in 2012, which permits the military to detain individuals indefinitely without trial, and remains on the books for 2014. Efforts to quash or reform the provision (especially with regard to the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens) have failed and have been fiercely fought by the administration. Most notably, a lawsuit filed by plaintiffs including journalist Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg against the provision has been aggressively fought at every turn by the president’s attorneys. The plaintiffs argue that the NDAA provision constitutes a significant expansion of the laws regarding indefinite detention already established by Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).
The 2014 NDAA also includes a new provision that appears to bolster the national security surveillance state. Section 1071(a) authorizes the Defense Department to “establish a center to be known as the Records Research Center’.” Using the dangerously broad terms now typical of national security policy parlance, the Conflict Records Research Center enables the DoD to compile a “digital research database including translations and to facilitate research and analysis of records captured from countries, organizations, and individuals, now or once hostile to the United States.” Who gets to be a surveillance target — the specific remit of “now or once hostile” — is troublingly ill-defined and unrestricted.
Below is a sample of the information I found on thier website. I have included links to their site for you to follow to learn more about Obama’s intentions. Click on the blue links to learn more.
The CRRC welcomes all qualified researchers to use its holdings. Because of the nature of the materials, however, potential researchers MUST complete several important steps prior to visiting the CRRC. This process includes:
- Accessing our collection indexes to determine whether the CRRC possesses files that may be helpful to one’s research (Saddam Hussein Collection Summary and Index, AQAM Collection Summary and Index)
- Obtaining Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval of one’s research plan
- Completing and returning the Conflict Records Research Center (CRRC) Non-Disclosure Agreement to protect Personally Identifiable Information (PII)
- Scheduling a time to use our research facility
Accordingly, the first step in using CRRC holdings is to call (202)685-2173 or e-mail usso that we can guide you through this process and help you obtain access to CRRC records in the most expeditious manner possible. We look forward to hearing from you!
ABOUT CRRC
Acting Director: David Palkki
The Conflict Records Research Center (CRRC) was established to fulfill the Secretary of Defense’s intent to enable research into captured records with “complete openness and rigid adherence to academic freedom and integrity.” The CRRC’s mission is to facilitate the use of captured records to support research, both within and outside the government.
Understand that this is being used on US Citizens too.
Sent to us by a reader.
very informative… like most articles… thanks