Major Media Scoundrels for Tyranny
Notably, US media scoundrels largely ignored the bill for months. On December 14, ahead of its enactment, The New York Times misreported its significance by failing to explain how US citizens are affected. Instead, it discussed inconsequential language changes and quoted a White House statement, saying:
"As a result of (House/Senate conference committee changes), we have concluded that the language does not challenge or constrain the president's ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the American people, and the president's senior advisors will not recommend a veto."
A same day Washington Post (WP) article also ignored the bill's draconian provisions. It quoted the same White House statement, and falsely claimed civilian authorities, not America's military, will be authorized to make arrests on US soil.
A December 13 WP editorial also misreported, claiming US citizens won't be subjected to military detention. In addition, like The Times and is own December 14 article, it discussed (ahead of passage) inconsequential changes while omitting explanation of constitutionally destructive draconian provisions.
Of course, no one ever accused America's major media of being long on truth and full disclosure. In serving wealth and power, they fail on all counts by inverting truth and avoiding what journalists are supposed to do - their job.
Readers, viewers and listeners have a choice. Growing numbers exercising it by walking away.
They're tuning out and making credible choices for real news and analysis more needed today perhaps than ever, given America's draconian direction.
Hopefully eventually they all will before it's too late to matter.
A Final Comment
On December 14, Nader.org headlined, "Congressional Tyranny, White House Surrender," saying:
The FY 2012 NDAA "will finish off some critical American rights under our Constitution." Two retired four-star marine generals (Charles Krulak and Joseph Hoar) urged an Obama veto, saying:
"One provision would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past..."
"A second provision would mandate military custody for most terrorism suspects. It would force on the military responsibilities it hasn't sought....for domestic law enforcement...."
"A third provision would further extend a ban on transfers from Guantanamo, ensuring that this morally and financially expensive symbol of detainee abuse will remain open well into the future."