Shared publicly  - 
This personally outrages me, NBC. Beyond disgusting -- I wish you'd go back to NOT reporting #NDAA , rather than spreading lies about it.

NBC affiliate KCBD has an article (currently top result when you search for NDAA on Google News) that quotes -- as the SOLE "expert" opinion -- a Congressman who claims NDAA doesn't apply to Americans.

They don't include the opinion of the ACLU, Amnesty International, RT, BBC, Human Rights Watch, constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald, Colin Powell's former chief of staff or any of the other countless expert voices who have analyzed the bill, and know that it DOES apply to American citizens. (Even the Senators who drafted indefinite detention are on record as stating that as the intention.)

NBC, you are the worst!
Bret Weinstein's profile photoDavid Seaman's profile photoGary Denton's profile photoJohn Harby's profile photo
And of course with the EEA, president whoever could simply declare you a non-citizen.

Ok, so it takes two clicks to disappear you forever without any review...
Unfortunately, the alternative media is squarely in the sights of SOPA and PIPA.
+Brandon McCowan skimmed it, I see the producer who wrote the piece responded to me personally -- he's calling this post a 'vicious and hateful attack.' Seriously??

He also writes: 'On a personal level I totally understand. As a voter and taxpayer I am deeply worried about the things we're discussing here. But by-in-large viewers don't care what I think. They care about the facts and figures I can find and report on the news. And I have to be fair to both sides of any controversy. So, I get it. But I also have follow the rules when covering a story. Hopefully the story I posted on is fair to both sides of this controversy. That's not living under a rock. That's doing what I'm supposed to do. Sometimes it's easy and sometimes it ain't. jc'

WRONG. That's not how journalism works. When one person says 'leprechauns and unicorns exist' and another says 'that's crazy, they don't exist,' you do NOT give equal air time to both sides.

This station, for whatever reason, picked one of only a handful of people on the planet who is making the argument that NDAA does not apply to American citizens. And it went with him as the main/only expert voice in the article, and also expressed his view in the HEADLINE of the article, which is the only part that most readers will see (sadly).

Why didn't they go with one of the countless experts against NDAA? Hell, bring in a local lawyer. He'd be able to tell you that NDAA does apply to American citizens, it IS a major threat to democracy and civil rights, and it SHOULD be treated as the #1 news story by stations like KCBD. It shouldn't be treated as a quick response to chill out viewers demanding more information.
+Jordan William Johnson Very much appreciate what you're doing. +Brandon McCowan Yeah, don't get rid of Facebook... one of the best ways to warn people about NDAA and SOPA quickly. And it's not about your town being uncool or anything, I'm sure your town and the people there are great. This is something happening nationwide. New York City, for example, should in theory have the best local news teams since they have a lot of viewers and larger budgets/resources than in smaller areas.

But their channels are pulling the same games. Will try to find a link showing how the ABC affiliate in NYC has been distorting coverage of Occupy and anti-NDAA protests there.

edit: found
I just left a comment as EasterLemming. I think that Obama should arrest indefinitely without charges a congressman or two. Clearly many are threats to the Constitution, and this will demonstrate to the fools on the Hill the power to abrogate the Constitution they have given him and future presidents.
Repost (I've seen other disinformation, this is the bottom line)


The biggest problem is here in section 1021 - ---------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially
supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces
that are engaged in hostilities against the United
States or its coalition partners, including any person
who has committed a belligerent act or has directly
supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy


Now if a citizen is not involved in al-Qaeda but is hostile even in a non-violent fashion and emotionally charged enough to be branded belligerent then they could be detained indefinitely according to this. Also that list of coalition partners contains some 50+ countries so we aren't just talking about anti-American statements. There may even be more ways they can work the works "hostile" and "belligerent" as an excuse to lock you up.

So how does this go down in the future? Someone of a certain rank
is sitting on a base and hears Jones was belligerent drunk last night
and saying hostile things against Spain. So they go pick Jones up
and detain him for a few years?

Also check out the list of "coalition partners" mentioned in 1021
Add a comment...