Occupy Philly Performs Street Theater, Says U.S. Senate Worse than Historical Fascists

op1Occupy Philly held a day of action against the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which, they and other critics contend, would allow the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. The crowd of about 30 marched around the city, hitting both Sen. Bob Casey and Sen. Pat Toomey’s offices, among other spots. Both senators voted in favor of the NDAA and against early amendments which would have taken out language allowing for the indefinite military detention of U.S. citizens.

“The bill contains troubling language that essentially allows for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens,” Occupy Philly alum Shawn McMonigle yelled into a bullhorn outside the Ritz Carlton Hotel on South Broad Street, where Mayor Michael Nutter was delivering remarks to the British American Business Council of Greater Philadelphia. “It was passed 93-7 in the Senate and…that basically says our Senate is OK with fascism.”

McMonigle detailed the fact that the White House has threatened to veto the bill, though not because it’s unconstitutional, but because it limits the power of the Executive Branch.

“The NDAA basically drives home the point that they want to define terrorism, broaden the scope and allow the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and she doesn’t care,” he said, pointing to a woman walking by with two small dogs.

As we’ve detailed, the original Senate writing of the NDAA included two sections (1031 and 1032) which were perceived by critics, including Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), to allow the indefinite detention of American citizens on U.S. soil, if determined to be affiliated with al-Qaeda. Both senators offered amendments which would eliminate or harshly edit the language on military detention, though both were voted down by their Senate colleagues, including Pennsylvania’s Democrat and Republican senators. After a national uproar began over the language, the Senate passed an amendment to Section 1032 by a 99-1 vote, which specifically states American citizens are exempt from this provision:

Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

This language has not satisfied critics of the bill across the U.S. According to the ACLU, S. 1867 (the NDAA) would still “authorize the president to send the military literally anywhere in the world to imprison civilians without charge or trial” since the aforementioned language is not included in Section 1031. The ACLU notes on their website:

No corner of the world, not even your own home, would be off-limits to the military. And there is no exception for American citizens. Section 1031 — one of the indefinite detention provisions — of the Senate-approved version of the NDAA has no limitations whatsoever based on geography, duration or citizenship. And the entire Senate bill was drafted in secret, with no hearing, and with committee votes behind closed doors.

op2Leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees have been meeting to reconcile the two versions of the bill passed by their respective houses of Congress. Understanding the White House’s veto threat, the requirement of military tribunals for all cases of detention, originally included in the House draft, was taken out of the bill.

Later in the Occupy Philly event, members impersonating Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, John Lennon and others spoke and bags were put over their heads as they were deemed terrorists, according to NDAA legislation. Later, members with Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Saddam Hussein masks got up for a world’s greatest fascist Fascist of the year contest. The U.S. Senate was deemed the winner for having passed the NDAA bill. An Occupy member with a sign around his neck that read “Toomey” accepted the award.

“[The National Defense Authorization Act] will make our streets safer than they were in 1930s Germany and our state more secure than Russia in the 1950s,” he said. “I want to thank all the senators who stood by me and stood with me, especially my fellow Pennsylvania senator Bob Casey. We would not have legislation like this if it weren’t for the bullheaded resolve of our senators.”

11 Responses to “ Occupy Philly Performs Street Theater, Says U.S. Senate Worse than Historical Fascists ”

  1. Green says:

    Somebody save that country before everything goes to hell.

  2. Mic Check says:

    Just a correction- Occupy Philly wasn’t saying Senate was WORSE than the other fascists, it wasn’t a contest. The skit was The Fascist of the YEAR Awards, and the other historical fascists were the past recipients of the award.

  3. Randy LoBasso says:

    Cool, thanks for the clarification. Please note edit above.

  4. Joshua Ian Handfinger says:

    first off, the author of this article writes

    “Occupy Philly held a day of action against the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which, they and other critics contend, would allow the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil”

    This sentence is misleading, probably unintentionally but still it is misleading. THE DIRECTOR of the ACLU, Anthony Romero, a prestigious and respected LAWYER, states clearly that this law, with its provisions, gives the Executive branch, the president, the “discretion”, to choose americans to jail without trial or lawyer, in complete violation with DUE PROCESS in the bill of rights of the AMerican constitution.

    let me repeat, this is not what occupy or critics are “contending”. LEGALLY speaking, this bill does give the president or any president the power to secretly jail without DUE PROCESS any american (except the president decides to give a waiver? haha thats silly). so this is misleading, LEADING LAWYERS disagree with you the author, and i would like you to rewrite this article as such to show the actual factual LEGAL codification of this law. there is no conention, its legal fact.

  5. Joshua Ian Handfinger says:

    otherwise, your integrity as a journalist would certainly be questioned because, as shown by the current words of American respected Lawyers of groups like the ACLU and others, there is no “contention”. the Laws effect would be very clear as to the powers given, not as to what critics “contend”

  6. billythekid says:

    Joshua– that doesn’t make the statement incorrect. For example, I am contending that you are a douchebag. It’s already a factual statement– objectively speaking, you are a douchebag.
    But I’m still contending it. That’s a factual statement too.

  7. [...] “[The NDAA] was passed 93-7 in the Senate and…that basically says our Senate is OK with fascism.” – Occupy Philly member, while performing street theater. [...]

  8. [...] “[Th&#1077 NDAA] w&#1072&#1109 passed 93-7 &#1110n th&#1077 Senate &#1072nd…th&#1072t basically &#1109&#1072&#1091&#1109 &#959&#965r Senate &#1110&#1109 OK w&#1110th fascism.” – Occupy Philly member, wh&#1110l&#1077 performing street theater. [...]

  9. Sue Riley says:

    Will Congress Expand The Defense Authorization Act To Include YOU as a “Covered Person?”

    It is problematic U.S. Government in the future will want to expand the scoop of Section 1021 in the passed Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (to include as “covered persons” for Indefinite Detention, not only persons “suspected of substantially supporting al-Qaeda or the Taliban; or their associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners” (but add to the list of “covered persons” (other) alleged terrorists and organizations foreign or domestic. Currently what constitutes (1) a terrorist act, (2) supporting terrorists or (3) being a “Belligerent” is broadly vague and not clearly defined? For example, Americans attending a protest demonstration against a U.S. Policy or U.S. Military Action could be charged with all (three) under the Patriot Act and The Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

    Provisions in The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 govern the “Authority of the President and Armed Forces to Detain (Covered Persons) without trial pursuant to the (AUMF) Authorization for Use of Military Force.

    FYI: Glenn Greenwald recently wrote an article titled “Three myths about the detention bill” that deeply examine provisions of The Defense Authorization Act including wording that is broadly vague, that potentially could cause the indefinite incarceration of Americans without trial; and conflicting definitions of “Covered Persons” in provisions (A) & (B) of section 1021. You may read Glen Greenwald’s article at: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/

    Is The Passed Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (retroactive) To Detain Americans?

    The Defense Authorization Act of 2012) appears more threatening to Americans than Hitler’s (1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS. Hitler’s laws set time limits that Germans could be incarcerated for e.g., Serious Disturbance of the Peace and Rioting. But Senators Carl Levin and John McCain’s bill broadly mandates holding Americans indefinitely in Military Custody for being a “Belligerent.”

    Why should anyone be surprised President Obama insisted on indefinite detentions of U.S. Citizens in The Defense Authorization Act? It was widely known that Obama gave a speech in May 2010 at a Security Conference that proposed, incarcerating anyone in indefinite detention without evidence of wrongdoing that government deemed a “combatant” or likely to engage or support a violent act in the future; including U.S. Citizens.

    Now that Obama has signed The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Obama like Hitler, will have the power to arrest members of Congress, drag U.S. Citizens off the street and from their homes to be imprisoned indefinitely based only on Government’s premise someone is a “Combatant” or Belligerent” having or likely to engage in or support a violent act in the future or do something that (might) threaten National Security.

    Now that Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, could millions of lawful U.S. activists be subject to indefinite military detention. When you examine Obama’s May 2010 speech, it appears Obama wanted (retroactive power) to incarcerate anyone that government alleged had (prior) committed or supported violent acts on the premise he or she is likely to engage in or support violent acts in the future: some U.S. activists may be vulnerable because no activist knows what other activists or groups they associated or networked did in the past or might do illegally in the future domestically or overseas. U.S. Government need (only allege) a person; group, organization current or former inmate—has committed or might commit a violent act or threaten U.S. National Security to order Indefinite Detention of Americans in military custody with no evidence whatsoever.

    Historically when countries have passed police state laws like S.1867, many Citizens abstain from politically speaking out; visiting activists websites or writing comments that might be deemed inappropriate by the Government, i.e. cause someone to be investigated or detained in Military Custody. Are some writers dead-meat with Obama’s signing of S. 1867? It is foreseeable any “American” who writes on the Internet or verbally express an opinion against any entity of U.S. Government or its coalition partners may under the Patriot Act and The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 be deemed by U.S. authorities a “Combatant or Belligerent” or someone likely to engage in, support or provoke violent acts or threaten National Security. U.S. Government can too easily allege an author’s writings inspired Combatant(s) or Belligerent(s) in the past; could in the future or currently, to order an author’s indefinite military detention.

    It is problematic that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings or allowed legal counsel that are interrogated, will be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite Military Detention. Obama will have the power to override the U.S. Constitution. Obama will have the power to detain indefinitely any American without probable cause or evidence. What American will dare speak out against the U.S. government now that Obama has signed The Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

    Obama appears to be centralizing the power of federal Government, by getting legislation passed that U.S. government can potentially use to intimidate and threaten any individual or corporation. Hitler got passed similar laws shortly before the burning of the German Parliament building blamed on the communists: immediately after the fire, Hitler used his prior passed police-state laws to coerce corporations and influential Citizens to support passage of fascist legislation e.g., the (1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS / DECREE OF THE REICH PRESIDENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE AND STATE that suspended provisions of the German Constitution that protected Citizens’ freedoms and civil liberties. Senators Carl Levin and John McCain’s (Defense Authorization Act of 2012) appears more threatening to Americans than Hitler’ (1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS. Hitler’s laws set time limits that Germans could be incarcerated for e.g., Serious Disturbance of the Peace and Rioting. But Senators Carl Levin (D) and John McCain’s ® bill broadly mandates holding Americans indefinitely in Military Custody for being a Combatant or Belligerent. A U.S. Police State Government can use The Defense Authorization Act; and Patriot Act that includes more than 350 civil asset forfeiture laws to threaten or seize the assets of any corporation or individual; to strong-arm U.S. corporations, institutions and others to support government actions including passage of more Police State (Fascist) legislation that will intimidate, threaten and curtail the civil liberties of Americans.

    Immediately Below: compare The 1933 Nazi Decrees with Senators Carl Levin and John McCain’s National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

    1933. ROBL. I 83.

    DECREE OF THE REICH PRESIDENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE AND STATE

    Note: Based on translations by State Department, National Socialism, 1942 PP. 215-17, and Pollak, J.K., and Heneman, H.J., The Hitler Decrees, (1934), pp. 10-11.7

    In virtue of Section 48 (2) of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against Communist acts of Violence, endangering the state:

    Section 1
    Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

    Section 2
    If in a state the measures necessary for the restoration of public security and order are not taken, the Reich Government may temporarily take over the powers of the highest state authority.

    Section 4
    Whoever provokes, or appeals for or incites to the disobedience of the orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities subject to then for the execution of this decree, or the orders given by the Reich Government according to Section 2, is punishable—insofar as the deed, is not covered by the decree with more severe punishment and with imprisonment of not less that one month, or with a fine from 150 up to 15,000 Reichsmarks.

    Whoever endangers human life by violating Section 1, is to be punished by sentence to a penitentiary, under mitigating circumstances with imprisonment of not less than six months and, when violation causes the death of a person, with death, under mitigating circumstances with a penitentiary sentence of not less that two years. In addition the sentence my include confiscation of property.

    Whoever provokes an inciter to or act contrary to public welfare is to be punished with a penitentiary sentence, under mitigating circumstances, with imprisonment of not less than three months.

    Section 5
    The crimes which under the Criminal Code are punishable with penitentiary for life are to be punished with death: i.e., in Sections 81 (high treason), 229 (poisoning), 306 (arson), 311 (explosion), 312 (floods), 315, paragraph 2 (damage to railroad properties, 324 (general poisoning).
    Insofar as a more severe punishment has not been previously provided for, the following are punishable with death or with life imprisonment or with imprisonment not to exceed 15 years:

    1. Anyone who undertakes to kill the Reich President or a member or a commissioner of the Reich Government or of a state government, or provokes to such a killing, or agrees to commit it, or accepts such an offer, or conspires with another for such a murder;
    2. Anyone who under Section 115 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious rioting) or of Section 125 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious disturbance of the peace) commits the act with arms or cooperates consciously and intentionally with an armed person;
    3. Anyone who commits a kidnapping under Section 239 of the Criminal with the intention of making use of the kidnapped person as a hostage in the political struggle.

    Section 6
    This decree enters in force on the day of its promulgation.

    Reich President
    Reich Chancellor
    Reich Minister of the Interior
    Reich Minister of Justice

  10. I appreciate, result in I found exactly what I used to be taking a look for. You have ended my 4 day long hunt! God Bless you man. Have a nice day. Bye

Leave a Reply

Follow PW

Got a news tip?

If you see something interesting, odd, funny or, of course, illegal, let us know by emailing tips@philadelphiaweekly.com