this is what democracy looks like

“To anyone who lives, loves or plays in this beautiful bioregion we called Cascadia aka the Pacific Northwest, on Sunday, April 15, 2012 will be an event at the Hanford site, a rally to call out awareness and ask questions. The event is not a “protest,” but a reminder that nuclear waste does not just go away and we demand external oversight to stop the two steps back for every one this clean up effort has seen. This is an education for several generations that simply was not informed or aware that one of the largest nuclear waste dumps in the world up river from one of Cascadia’s most populated areas and that our beautiful ecosystems are continuously contaminated by the mistakes of our past as well as greed and abuse of powers of the present. If you care about our home and about our children’s grandchildren then you will find the means to join us in the reawakening in the collective minds about this tragedy within our landscape. If you can not attend then please spread the word and help other join this remembering of the continuous crises that nuclear waste leaves on our landscape.”~ A.B.

(via amodernmanifesto)

theamericanbear:

Congress is now considering three bills designed to quiet the uproar [over last year’s NDAA]. One, sponsored by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), would repeal the detention sections of the NDAA entirely. Another, sponsored by Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), would ensure that suspected terrorists captured on US soil, whether they are citizens or not, could not be detained indefinitely without trial.

Then there’s a third bill, proposed by Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), called the Right to Habeas Corpus Act. Rigell’s bill, which has 32 cosponsors, would do basically nothing. That’s because all it does is affirm the right of American citizens to have a judge evaluate the legality of their detention, and there has been no disagreement over that right since the Supreme Court affirmed it in 2004. The question has been whether the United States could hold suspected terrorists without ever charging them with a crime. Under Rigell’s bill, a future president could still potentially indefinitely detain an American citizen arrested in the United States on suspicion of terrorism, while Smith’s bill would prevent them from doing so. 

Rigell’s bill is “addressing a habeas problem that doesn’t exist, and ignoring the real problem, which is indefinite detention without charge or trial,” says ACLU legislative counsel Chris Anders.

Rigell’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment. But Anders notes that detention authority can be a “confusing” and “difficult” area in which to legislate, partially because many of the issues aren’t entirely settled. Of the two bills that would actually alter the NDAA, Smith’s has 56 cosponsors in the House. Paul’s bill has five cosponsors.

Republicans in the House, however, seem much warmer to Rigell’s mostly symbolic legislation, with [House Armed Services Committee spokesman, Claude] Chafin insisting it would “put to rest any doubt to the…purpose of last year’s NDAA.” The law’s critics don’t believe that. “We don’t trust Congress, who just passed this thing into law, to all of a sudden say, ‘Oh, we were wrong; we’re going to change it,’” director of the Tenth Amendment Center, Michael] Boldin said. That’s probably a safe bet.

More: House May Limit Detention After Arrests on U.S. Soil | Charlie Savage

(via socialuprooting)