I wasn’t going to address this, but since it is an editorial published in The Wall Street Journal — and not on some dude’s WordPress blog — I will do so.
On April 29, the newspaper published an opinion piece mocking those who are opposed to the NDAA’s imprisonment without trial of American citizens provisions. The editorial is so loony that it would actually be funny, if it were not in fact real. It’d be hilarious if it were penned by someone like Stephen Colbert, in jest.
First paragraph: “The tea party movement has generally been constructive, but every so often it runs off the road. A case in point is its emerging condominium with the anti-antiterror left to block terrorist detentions.”
Yes, The Wall Street Journal just used the phrase “anti-antiterror left.” That’s inspired Orwellian creativity. It really is.
Moving downward: “This modest law has sprouted a burst of political delusion in several states and Congress. A tea party outfit called the Tenth Amendment Center calls the law ‘an unconstitutional and dangerous federal power grab’—though the statute merely codifies existing practice under Presidents Bush and Obama.”
Modest law? Modest?!
Here’s how the ACLU has characterized the NDAA: “On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), codifying indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history. The NDAA’s dangerous detention provisions would authorize the president — and all future presidents — to order the military to pick up and indefinitely imprison people captured anywhere in the world, far from any battlefield.”
Yeah, sounds modest to me. (Read more)