This is a follow-up to my Sex and Politics radio interview with Tangerine Bolen the other night. You’ll be able to hear it at our podcast site over the next few days, but the important part is here. I say this knowing that some of what I put forward here will be dismissed as conspiracy theorizing, but I’d written about it before.
One of the issues that Tangerine Bolen raised is that lawsuits against implementation of the NDAA or NSA spying are routinely dismissed because plaintiffs don’t have “standing”. For example, if you’re going to sue over ‘indefinite military detentions’ allowed under the NDAA, you have to be detained–you can’t be suing as a ‘friend of the court’. Your problem is with the congresscreatures who wrote the law and the president who signed off on it, not the judiciary mandated to uphold it. With the NDAA enjoying bipartisan support, good luck with changing the law.
But the most interesting part of our discussion (at least to me) was Bolen’s discussion of the origins of Section 1021. She was careful to explain (I’m paraphrasing here) that she did not hold Obama solely responsible for the intelligence mess we’re in–if he wanted to change past practices, he would be putting another big item on his plate. And 1021 seems to be a RETROACTIVE approach to a problem that already exists. If in fact the administration’s lawyers were fighting Judge Katherine Forrest’s injunction by alluding to the possibility that people had ALREADY BEEN DETAINED under 1021, that creates a very small time window for such arrests to have taken place. It’s far more likely that there are people who were detained for no good legal reason long before 2012 who would have to be acknowledged and released.
Again, I am paraphrasing here but if you want to be notified when the podcast of our interview is mounted, drop some info into the contact sheet and we’ll let you know when it’s up on the site.
I wish you peace in scary times.