View Full Version : NDAA 2012: Signed into law. Now What?
An Undocumented Worker
12-26-11, 22:22
The National Defense Authorization Act has been signed into law.:(
There are two provisions of this law that makes me fear for the future of this republic. Below is the text that appears to be of most concern. As found here:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:7:./temp/~c112y0b3Gx:e838662:
SEC. 1031. COUNTERTERRORISM OPERATIONAL BRIEFING REQUIREMENT.
(a) Briefings Required- Beginning not later than March 1, 2012, the Secretary of Defense shall provide to the congressional defense committees quarterly briefings outlining Department of Defense counterterrorism operations and related activities involving special operations forces.
(b) Elements- Each briefing under subsection (a) shall include each of the following:
(1) A global update on activity within each geographic combatant command.
(2) An overview of authorities and legal issues including limitations.
(3) An outline of interagency activities and initiatives.
(4) Any other matters the Secretary considers appropriate.
SEC. 1032. NATIONAL SECURITY PLANNING GUIDANCE TO DENY SAFE HAVENS TO AL-QAEDA AND ITS VIOLENT EXTREMIST AFFILIATES.
(a) Purpose- The purpose of this section is to improve interagency strategic planning and execution to more effectively integrate efforts to deny safe havens and strengthen at-risk states to further the goals of the National Security Strategy related to the disruption, dismantlement, and defeat of al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates.
(b) National Security Planning Guidance-
(1) GUIDANCE REQUIRED- The President shall issue classified or unclassified national security planning guidance in support of objectives stated in the national security strategy report submitted to Congress by the President pursuant to section 108 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404a) to deny safe havens to al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates and to strengthen at-risk states. Such guidance shall serve as the strategic plan that governs United States and coordinated international efforts to enhance the capacity of governmental and nongovernmental entities to work toward the goal of eliminating the ability of al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates to establish or maintain safe havens.
(2) CONTENTS OF GUIDANCE- The guidance required under paragraph (1) shall include each of the following:
(A) A prioritized list of specified geographic areas that the President determines are necessary to address and an explicit discussion and list of the criteria or rationale used to prioritize the areas on the list, including a discussion of the conditions that would hamper the ability of the United States to strengthen at-risk states or other entities in such areas.
(B) For each specified geographic area, a description, analysis, and discussion of the core problems and contributing issues that allow or could allow al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates to use the area as a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks, engage in propaganda, or raise funds and other support, including any ongoing or potential radicalization of the population, or to use the area as a key transit route for personnel, weapons, funding, or other support.
(C) A list of short-term, mid-term, and long-term goals for each specified geographic area, prioritized by importance.
(D) A description of the role and mission of each Federal department and agency involved in executing the guidance, including the Departments of Defense, Justice, Treasury, and State and the Agency for International Development.
(E) A description of gaps in United States capabilities to meet the goals listed pursuant to subparagraph (C), and the extent to which those gaps can be met through coordination with nongovernmental, international, or private sector organizations, entities, or companies.
(3) REVIEW AND UPDATE OF GUIDANCE- The President shall review and update the guidance required under paragraph (1) as necessary. Any such review shall address each of the following:
(A) The overall progress made toward achieving the goals listed pursuant to paragraph (2)(C), including an overall assessment of the progress in denying a safe haven to al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates.
(B) The performance of each Federal department and agency involved in executing the guidance.
(C) The performance of the unified country team and appropriate combatant command, or in the case of a cross-border effort, country teams in the area and the appropriate combatant command.
(D) Any addition to, deletion from, or change in the order of the prioritized list maintained pursuant to paragraph (2)(A).
(4) SPECIFIED GEOGRAPHIC AREA DEFINED- In this subsection, the term `specified geographic area' means any country, subnational territory, or region--
(A) that serves or may potentially serve as a safe haven for al-Qaeda or a violent extremist affiliate of al-Qaeda--
(i) from which to plan and launch attacks, engage in propaganda, or raise funds and other support; or
(ii) for use as a key transit route for personnel, weapons, funding, or other support; and
(B) over which one or more governments or entities exert insufficient governmental or security control to deny al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates the ability to establish a large scale presence.
I ask what exactly does this mean to US Citizens and how we can best get these provisions reppealed etc.
Please keep the discussion on topic of the ramifications of this bill and how we can fix this SNAFU.
Any personal attacks and trolling will not be tollerated, do not get this thread locked.
An Undocumented Worker
12-26-11, 22:48
These sections may also be relevent. Infact I think these are the most relevent sections. Due to the severe lack of meaningful information, the media seems to be citing the wrong sections of the bill.
Either way the rule of law appears to severly at risk.
SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(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 forces.
(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.
(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-
(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1021 who is determined--
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1028.
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The President may waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.
(b) 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.
(c) Implementation Procedures-
(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.
(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.
(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.
(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing interrogation.
(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other Government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.
(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.
(d) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.
(e) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.
Unfortunately it also appears that the final signed text of this bill isn't yet available on .gov websites.
Belmont31R
12-26-11, 22:54
Im not a legal eagle but it does appear the law does not apply to resident aliens nor citizens. But Ill defer that to lawyers and grads.
I just find it hilarious the libs got this douche elected on all these false premises, and here this idiot goes ignoring his promise to close Gitmo and then signs a law saying he can detain people (at least non citizens or non resident aliens) forever. Its like a great shot across the bow all the libs have stood for against Bush for over a decade! I don't follow the MSM on this type of stuff but just keep some people I expect to post about this type of stuff on the list, and see what they say. More than a few libs are already throwing in the towel or are about to on their great savior.
This is another "America loses the government wins" law much like the Patriot Act, creation of TSA and DHS, and other such BS. They are gifting themselves powers not following Constitutional law or procedure. Its like writing up a letter, and handing it over to your bank saying you really have 25 million in your account not the 25k is presently shows.
An Undocumented Worker
12-26-11, 23:02
Relevant article.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/16/1046030/-I-Must-Conclude-That-The-NDAA-2012-Bill-Is-Not-The-Constitution-Destroying-Measure-Claimed-By-Many
and here is a snippet of the article.
Section 1031 of the NDAA authorizes the US military to detain members of al-queda, the Taliban, and associated forces, and persons who supported aggressive acts against the US. Persons who are detain may be held indefinitely without a trial. This section makes no mention of where the US military can take such actions, so presumably, actions by the US military within the US are authorized. This measure is highly controversial because it appears to undermine the US Constitution Article III guarantees to a trial by jury, habeus corpus protections, and Amendments V, VI, and VIII. However, this section includes paragraph (e), which says:
“Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”
This language indicates that Section 1031 of the NDAA can not be used to weaken or remove constitutional protections for US citizens against indefinite detention, or the right to habeus corpus, or a trial by jury.
Again this also seems to highlight the confusion regarding the language currently viewable from the library of congress.
QuietShootr
12-26-11, 23:10
Im not a legal eagle but it does appear the law does not apply to resident aliens nor citizens. But Ill defer that to lawyers and grads.
I just find it hilarious the libs got this douche elected on all these false premises, and here this idiot goes ignoring his promise to close Gitmo and then signs a law saying he can detain people (at least non citizens or non resident aliens) forever. Its like a great shot across the bow all the libs have stood for against Bush for over a decade! I don't follow the MSM on this type of stuff but just keep some people I expect to post about this type of stuff on the list, and see what they say. More than a few libs are already throwing in the towel or are about to on their great savior.
This is another "America loses the government wins" law much like the Patriot Act, creation of TSA and DHS, and other such BS. They are gifting themselves powers not following Constitutional law or procedure. Its like writing up a letter, and handing it over to your bank saying you really have 25 million in your account not the 25k is presently shows.
Way wrong. That wording simply says that US citizens are not REQUIRED to be held in MILITARY custody. That's all. So they can be held in non-military custody, unlike non-citizens. It's a neat little word game that has fooled 90% of the "**** you tinfoilers" types.
I believe the above concerns are well placed...but more of a macro level question:
Why, when we are seemingly directing this at religious zealots, martyrs, fanatics, terrorists, etc, would we think that indefinite detainment would be some form of threat/deterrent? The completion of their mission and the afterlife is their only consideration, correct?
An Undocumented Worker
12-26-11, 23:28
I believe the above concerns are well placed...but more of a macro level question:
Why, when we are seemingly directing this at religious zealots, martyrs, fanatics, terrorists, etc, would we think that indefinite detainment would be some form of threat/deterrent? The completion of their mission and the afterlife is their only consideration, correct?
As far as I can reason, you seem to be correct in your assumption. I don't know if it is possible to win against the zealots, without either converting them or doing something that any reasonable human being would consider exceedingly beyond attrocious.
And considering that a snowball has a better chance in hell, than of mankind converting them, proceeding with the other option still means we lose even if we succeed.
The point being this legislation does nothing to win the war on terrorism, if anything it furthers the terrorists goals by taking away our freedom.
The less freedom one thinks they have, the more likely they would be to believe in hairbrained extreme ideas. You can read between the lines.:sad:
I thought so and that was my take-away. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.
Sec 1031/32 of the NDAA are very confusing IMO. The almost seem to contradict one another...
An Undocumented Worker
12-26-11, 23:36
I thought so and that was my take-away. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.
Sec 1031/32 of the NDAA are very confusing IMO. The almost seem to contradict one another...
Yeah damn near all of the articles I have read seem to paint it in one light, but I'm having trouble finding official transcripts of the law that fully jive with what is reported. Seeing that none of the articles link directly to the law, it just frustrates the search for truth.
At this point I really am not sure what to think. Given the difficulty making heads or tails of what I have read I wonder if our legislators really have any clue either.
I guess some people in Montana think it's a shitty deal.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/25/1048711/-Montanans-Launch-Recall-of-Senators-Who-Approved-NDAA-Military-Detention-Merry-Christmas,-US-Senate
ForTehNguyen
12-27-11, 08:15
"and associated forces" whatever the heck that means
Three myths about the detention bill
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/
President’s Detention Plan Tests American Legal Tradition
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/23/us/politics/23detain.html
Plain and simple, it's called tyranny.
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. - Thomas Jefferson
A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny. - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Im not a legal eagle but it does appear the law does not apply to resident aliens nor citizens. But Ill defer that to lawyers and grads.
I just find it hilarious the libs got this douche elected on all these false premises, and here this idiot goes ignoring his promise to close Gitmo and then signs a law saying he can detain people (at least non citizens or non resident aliens) forever. Its like a great shot across the bow all the libs have stood for against Bush for over a decade! I don't follow the MSM on this type of stuff but just keep some people I expect to post about this type of stuff on the list, and see what they say. More than a few libs are already throwing in the towel or are about to on their great savior.
This is another "America loses the government wins" law much like the Patriot Act, creation of TSA and DHS, and other such BS. They are gifting themselves powers not following Constitutional law or procedure. Its like writing up a letter, and handing it over to your bank saying you really have 25 million in your account not the 25k is presently shows.
Let us also not forget that he ran for president on the platform of doing away with the Patriot Act when it sunsetted. This was another bill that served only to strip Americans of their rights and allow the gubment to treat average citizens as dangerous criminals as long as they saw fit to do so. Seems to me he's going back on just about everything he ran on but a politician wouldn't do that, would they?
I want to know where these so called "conservative" ****tard Republicans got the idea that it was OK to surgically remove civil rights? Were exactly is that enumerated in the GOP Principles? My favorite home state Republican Senator, "Dr. No", Tom Coburn voted against it. But the rest of the delegation approved this POS!!!
I'll be actively working to send their asses home as they come up for reelection, starting with the POS RINO John Sullivan! :mad:
I guess some people in Montana think it's a shitty deal.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/25/1048711/-Montanans-Launch-Recall-of-Senators-Who-Approved-NDAA-Military-Detention-Merry-Christmas,-US-Senate
I would urge anyone in the either other states that allow for the same type of federal official recall to take advantage of this:
"The website Ballotpedia.org (http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Laws_governing_recall#State.2C_local.2C_and_federal) cites eight other states which allow for the recall of elected federal officials: Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, and Wisconsin."
Very interesting 7pg. PDF titled Recalling U.S. Senators and Congressmen. (http://www.uscitizensassociation.com/pdfs/Recalling%20U.S.%20Senators%20and%20Congressmen.pdf)
Watch this video. http://youtu.be/NW-e7z7S6VI
Watch this video. http://youtu.be/NW-e7z7S6VI
Excellent video. I'm disgusted when I find myself agreeing with Al Franken over my own "Republican" Congressman. :(
Sorry Mr. "O", but there was more thought put into the constitution, than your pea brain can comprehend, UNLESS, your goal is to strip the US Citizens of all rights and make them slaves. Thus you totally understand it, AND it is standing in your way of POWER OVER THE PEOPLE, to destroy them from within. Mr. "O" needs to be recalled on his statements alone, then on to other things about him.
Sorry Mr. "O", but there was more thought put into the constitution, than your pea brain can comprehend, UNLESS, your goal is to strip the US Citizens of all rights and make them slaves. Thus you totally understand it, AND it is standing in your way of POWER OVER THE PEOPLE, to destroy them from within. Mr. "O" needs to be recalled on his statements alone, then on to other things about him.
My late BIL, was convinced that, Barry, the Kenyen national (who just happens to live in the white house) Would somehow make a power grab of some sort, to keep himself president, permanently, I used to laugh at his theory...But after reading this, I'm now wondering if these laws aren't stepping stones to do just that..
My late BIL, was convinced that, Barry, the Kenyen national (who just happens to live in the white house) Would somehow make a power grab of some sort, to keep himself president, permanently, I used to laugh at his theory...But after reading this, I'm now wondering if these laws aren't stepping stones to do just that..
Taking any of these things as complete pictures and then crying foul is what gets people labeled as tinfoil hatters. However, taking all of the following as pieces of a big jigsaw puzzle can only point one direction - absolute empowerment of the govt at the expense of individual Liberty:
- War on Drugs
- War on "Terror"
- Patriot Act
- ACORN type meddling in the election process
- All-encompassing "health care" laws
- Economic policies that seem to be purposely screwing things up
- Fast & Furious
- "perpetual war for perpetual peace"
- NDAA
- SOPA and PIPA (shackles on the internet)
- murmurs of reviving the "Fairness Doctrine"
- etc...
All it will take is some kind of catalyst - another 9/11, bank runs, stock market crash - and the America we all grew up in will be gone.
There seems to be a lot of tinfoil and little reading comprehension.
"Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."
What the above means is that someone arrested in the USA would be held and charged under existing laws, in the normal justice system, with all their Rights.
Why, when we are seemingly directing this at religious zealots, martyrs, fanatics, terrorists, etc, would we think that indefinite detainment would be some form of threat/deterrent?
It's not designed to be. POW's are normally held until the end of hostilities. They don't have to be convicted of a crime but you capture and hold them so you don't have to fight them again. What this does is clarify that we will hold enemy combatants in much the same way as a POW would be, even though they are not POW's.
QuietShootr
12-28-11, 12:33
There seems to be a lot of tinfoil and little reading comprehension.
"Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."
What the above means is that someone arrested in the USA would be held and charged under existing laws, in the normal justice system, with all their Rights.
That's not what it says. It says
aw, **** it. Whatever. The Emperor's clothes are fine, you're right.
Burry your head in the sand, and it WILL all go away, and never effect you!
What I'm wondering about is, IF it pertains to POW's, THEN WTF DOES IT NEED TO BE NOW, CONSIDERING WE HAVE BEEN IN SEVERAL WARS ALREADY? What, we NEVER had our own POW's?
They; the Emperor's, know they have to act quick, and catch sheople off guard.
It's not good for two wolves and one sheep to vote on whats for dinner!
Some people are going to look pretty silly, when they find out the "Tin Foil Hats" were right after all. Kinda like laughing at Noah, and his Ark.
There seems to be a lot of tinfoil and little reading comprehension.
"Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."
What the above means is that someone arrested in the USA would be held and charged under existing laws, in the normal justice system, with all their Rights.
It's not designed to be. POW's are normally held until the end of hostilities. They don't have to be convicted of a crime but you capture and hold them so you don't have to fight them again. What this does is clarify that we will hold enemy combatants in much the same way as a POW would be, even though they are not POW's.
I rarely disagree with you Todd (this may be the 1st time actually), but the sentence you quoted is a red herring. I cannot envision that the writers of the NDAA have such poor english language skills that they intentionally put that sentence in one place, and then unintentionallly placed this language in there as well:
The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
Now why wouldn't they instead phrase it in this way:
The authority to detain a person in military custody under this section shall not apply to citizens of the United States.
I deal with federal regulations all day, every day. I recognize clever wording when I see it. This clever wording can be used to either emasculate or solidify a requirement. In this case, it does not prohibit an action, it merely exempts it from mandatory action. In our vague, gray world, this can easily be argued to "not specifically prohibit" the detention of US citizens. The way I re-worded it would not prohibit military detention of U.S. citizens either, it would merely excluse the use of this document to do so.
The 2012 NDAA specifically targets Al-Quaeda, the Taliban and anyone who materially supports them. There's no way this could be applied to 99.99% of U.S. citizens. The Obama administration has stated that if signed, it will not be interpreted to apply to U.S. citizens, by his administration (if they don't go back on their word). This bill isn't the threat to our civil rights itself. It's the Halligan tool used to breach the door on our civil rights. After that, we're left vulnerable to whatever might enter. :(
Take a look at the Fast and Furious thread and some of the links Irish posted. Then look at some of the so-called FBI terrorism operations.
Now think of how this can be applied to some of those people who were U.S citizens.
Our government has shown repeatedly that they can be very deceitful. I'm sorry, I don't trust them or this legislation. Think about all of the "well intenioned" legislation that has become law that later back fired.
Take a look at the Fast and Furious thread and some of the links Irish posted. Then look at some of the so-called FBI terrorism operations.
Now think of how this can be applied to some of those people who were U.S citizens.
Our government has shown repeatedly that they can be very deceitful. I'm sorry, I don't trust them or this legislation. Think about all of the "well intenioned" legislation that has become law that later back fired.
Quoting myself from that thread so people can find it easier.
Take a look at these articles relating to the FBI's PATCON (OKC bombing) and foiling their own terrorist plots. The first one relates directly to Belmont's post and is written by the guy who has brought a lot of the F&F information into the light. The other 2 are about the FBI and the "terrorist plots" that they stop from happening.
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2011/11/ssi-exclusive-hiding-mass-murder-behind.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/16/fbi-entrapment-fake-terror-plots?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038
http://politics.salon.com/2011/09/29/fbi_terror/singleton/
I have not read the entire law, just what was quoted here. I cannot find any language that allows for the detainment of anyone in the USA. There may be something in parts not quoted here, but my bet is that some people saw a few words and jumped to conclusions.
What I'm wondering about is, IF it pertains to POW's, THEN WTF DOES IT NEED TO BE NOW, CONSIDERING WE HAVE BEEN IN SEVERAL WARS ALREADY? What, we NEVER had our own POW's?
As I already said, the current war does not have us fighting uniformed members of a Nation State. The law of war is based on conflict between Nation States, so no, there is not enough law defining the way we treat enemy combatants that do not wear a uniform.
They will be held indefinitely (just like POW's) until the end of hostilities. This is normal conduct of war, just adding combatants without a uniform.
Taking any of these things as complete pictures and then crying foul is what gets people labeled as tinfoil hatters. However, taking all of the following as pieces of a big jigsaw puzzle can only point one direction - absolute empowerment of the govt at the expense of individual Liberty:
- War on Drugs
- War on "Terror"
- Patriot Act
- ACORN type meddling in the election process
- All-encompassing "health care" laws
- Economic policies that seem to be purposely screwing things up
- Fast & Furious
- "perpetual war for perpetual peace"
- NDAA
- SOPA and PIPA (shackles on the internet)
- murmurs of reviving the "Fairness Doctrine"
- etc...
All it will take is some kind of catalyst - another 9/11, bank runs, stock market crash - and the America we all grew up in will be gone.
The America I grew up in, is already gone....As a example.. As a 15yr old kid,I would gather up my .22 rifle and ammo, go up the street (mind you, walking on the sidewalk openly)to a friends house, where we would meet up, go up a couple other streets, to a dirt road that led to the city dump, where we would proceed to shoot rats at our leisure..And no one cared..Today, if a 15yr old kid walked up the street with a .22 and ammo,He would'nt get a block before he'd be picked up, most likely charged with some sort of terrorist activity, and if the media got wind of it they'd make it look like the kid was on his way to start the next mass murder. I'm 57, and the amount of freedom that has been eroded from us, the citizens, within the last 42 yrs is shocking..Polticians are now much more brazen, willingly voting away more freedoms in exchange for more money and of course, immunity from the bastard laws they put in place.How's the old saying go,"Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it" I only see this ending one way..
QuietShootr
12-28-11, 19:13
I rarely disagree with you Todd (this may be the 1st time actually), but the sentence you quoted is a red herring. I cannot envision that the writers of the NDAA have such poor english language skills that they intentionally put that sentence in one place, and then unintentionallly placed this language in there as well:
Now why wouldn't they instead phrase it in this way:
I deal with federal regulations all day, every day. I recognize clever wording when I see it. This clever wording can be used to either emasculate or solidify a requirement. In this case, it does not prohibit an action, it merely exempts it from mandatory action. In our vague, gray world, this can easily beargued to "not specifically prohibit" the detention of US citizens. The way I re-worded it would not prohibit military detention of U.S. citizens either, it would merely excluse the use of this document to do so.
The 2012 NDAA specifically targets Al-Quaeda, the Taliban and anyone who materially supports them. There's no way this could be applied to 99.99% of U.S. citizens. The Obama administration has stated that if signed, it will not be interpreted to apply to U.S. citizens, by his administration (if they don't go back on their word). This bill isn't the threat to our civil rights itself. It's the Halligan tool used to breach the door on our civil rights. After that, we're left vulnerable to whatever might enter. :(
THIS guy has it exactly correct.
I cannot envision that the writers of the NDAA have such poor english language skills that they intentionally put that sentence in one place, and then unintentionallly placed this language in there as well:
"The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."
The law requires the military to hold enemies of the US, the sentence above would allow for example US citizens to be transferred to the US justice system.
In our vague, gray world, this can easily be argued to "not specifically prohibit" the detention of US citizens.This will draw more fire, but there is no reason to prohibit the detention of US citizens caught on the wrong side of a battlefield. I have no problem with them being held in exactly the same manner as other "covered persons" (or POW if they were in uniform), your US citizenship is not a get out of jail free card.
War outside the US and crimes committed in the US are different.
War and crime are different.
That's not what it says. It says
aw, **** it. Whatever. The Emperor's clothes are fine, you're right.
Feel free to actually point out the section that grants any additional powers, or is contrary to any of our Rights.
Someones screwing up and will get this locked. I hope they can see their way to stop before it reaches that point.
Moose-Knuckle
12-28-11, 20:40
Now what?
We're ****ed.
The NDAA is the most recent of the seditious pieces of legislation to be implemented by our omnipotent Federal government. They seem to be creating more and more out of thin air with greater frequency.
A part from the ones that have already been listed in this thread thus far. . .
Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h1955_rfs.xml)
White House Rural Council (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/09/obama-administration-establishes-white-house-rural-council-strengthen-ru)
Which coincides with The United Nations Agenda 21 ( http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/)
:help:
The law requires the military to hold enemies of the US, the sentence above would allow for example US citizens to be transferred to the US justice system.
This will draw more fire, but there is no reason to prohibit the detention of US citizens caught on the wrong side of a battlefield. I have no problem with them being held in exactly the same manner as other "covered persons" (or POW if they were in uniform), your US citizenship is not a get out of jail free card.
War outside the US and crimes committed in the US are different.
War and crime are different.
That's just it, Allow is permissive. Shall or must is a requirement. While one person can view the phrase as allowing the transfer, another can and will view it as neither required nor expected.
I have no issue with allowing detention of a US citizen, acting as an enemy combatant on a foreign battlefield in lieu of transfer to civilian authorities stateside, particularly until all obtainable intel can be gathered from the individual. However, once that's exhausted, I see no reason to continue indefinite military detention beyond that. Send them off to prison for a long stretch, and/or until hostilities cease.
I do take issue with those who claim dual citizenship, such as Awlaki, who commit treasonous acts in the name of their "other" country. Upon conviction, (in absentia if necessary) of committing such acts, US citizenship should be stripped so they may be legally recognized as an enemy combatant.
Any US person caught committing treason inside the US should be interrogated by civilian authorities, then have a speedy trial as is their right. That's regardless of whether their treason can be viewed as terrorism. The only exception should be US service members, such as Hasan. They would obviously fall under military tribunal.
I find it odd that we have such restrictive use of force policies on our troops "policing" foreign lands, yet we have a virtual "weapons free" policy on indefinite detention without judicial review, even for US persons? Ground troops cannot be trusted to make decisions on their own defense, but we can trust others to deny a persons rights indefinitely? I have a problem with that personally.
Mo_Zam_Beek
12-29-11, 10:03
Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h1955_rfs.xml)
White House Rural Council (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/09/obama-administration-establishes-white-house-rural-council-strengthen-ru)
Which coincides with The United Nations Agenda 21 ( http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/)
:help:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/19/epa-ponders-expanded-regulatory-power-in-name-sustainable-development/
Like everything else - a mere coniencedence, esp as it is regulatory and thereby side steps representative governance.
Good luck
What I find so disturbing is that some are claiming the sky is falling, but it SPECIFICALLY DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING about treatment of US citizens or arrest in the US. The law is about conduct of war. It's purpose is to clearly define our non uniformed enemy and apply the normal indefinite military detention for enemy we capture, just like the uniformed enemy from a Nation State.
This should have been the end of wild speculation:
"Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."
That's just it, Allow is permissive. Shall or must is a requirement. While one person can view the phrase as allowing the transfer, another can and will view it as neither required nor expected.
I think you are missing the reason to require military detention. By defining the enemy we can apply the same law of war to them as used for POW's. Remember the reason for GTMO was to keep them out of the US justice system, because their status did not fit into existing law. There was no such concern during WWII when we had POW camps in the US. They were clearly POW's not entitled to the US justice system, and did not need to be charged with a crime under the US justice system to be held until the end of hostilities.
...no reason to continue indefinite military detention beyond that. Send them off to prison for a long stretch, and/or until hostilities cease.
Indefinite military detention = Prison until the end of hostilities
The US Govt. will apply it to whomever they damn well wish, FOR whatever reason they damn well wish. And it is open to THEIR interpretation. LOOK at how DC interprets an "Automatic Weapon! Just one example. Who makes the rules? Us, or the runaway Govt. now running US? THIS is why we NEED to keep ALL guards UP! It is not good for two wolves and one sheep, to decide whats for dinner!
Indefinite military detention = Prison until the end of hostilities
There will never be an end to hostilities. The never ending WOD, WOT and WOEverything else will continue indefinitely.
There will never be an end to hostilities. The never ending WOD, WOT and WOEverything else will continue indefinitely.
Powers of Congress, Article 1 Section 8. I see no limit on the length of a war being specified.
"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
Authorization for Use of Military Force.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40
You should contact your Representatives if you don't like what they are doing, but nothing is being done outside of the powers specifically granted to them and I don't see anything that infringes on any Rights.
You are correct that the enemy we fight is not a Nation State and it will be hard to end. But it seems absurd that we should just release enemy that were captured, knowing they will likely continue to be a threat to the US. There are some other options in the law that seem consistent with the normal conduct of war.
"(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity."
Powers of Congress, Article 1 Section 8. I see no limit on the length of a war being specified.
Only Congress can declare war per the United States Constitution. All the bullshit laws and loopholes that they've written and enacted to circumvent that mean nothing to me. If the government wants to get rid of "loopholes" they should get rid of those first.
Please don't take my tone personally or against you, it's not intended to be. I'm merely frustrated with a lot of things happening inside our government as of late.
Powers of Congress, Article 1 Section 8. I see no limit on the length of a war being specified.
"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
Authorization for Use of Military Force.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40
You should contact your Representatives if you don't like what they are doing, but nothing is being done outside of the powers specifically granted to them and I don't see anything that infringes on any Rights.
You are correct that the enemy we fight is not a Nation State and it will be hard to end. But it seems absurd that we should just release enemy that were captured, knowing they will likely continue to be a threat to the US. There are some other options in the law that seem consistent with the normal conduct of war.
"(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity."
This is specifically what I find consistent with the detention of actual U.S. citizens. Once their usefulness in defeating or deterring the continued threat on a military scale is done, they need to stand trial as a U.S. citizen and have due process, as is their right.
I agree that
"Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." should be the end of it, but the language used elsewhere in the NDAA is illogical and nonsensical in the context of the bill. So my original question still remains, why did they word it that way? It's either intentional, or incompetence. Either way, it shouldn't be allowed to stand. All it does is muddy the waters for future command staff.
We should always be very careful in addressing the rights of a citizen. This bill is careless and haphazard on that subject. :(
I agree that should be the end of it, but the language used elsewhere in the NDAA is illogical and nonsensical in the context of the bill. So my original question still remains, why did they word it that way? It's either intentional, or incompetence. Either way, it shouldn't be allowed to stand. All it does is muddy the waters for future command staff.
We should always be very careful in addressing the rights of a citizen. This bill is careless and haphazard on that subject. :(
It is written with loopholes for????? Citizens?? HELL NO. It/they are written for the use by "Whatever/However the powers that be decide to use them be"! To subdue whomever they damn well chose, and/or for whatever they damn well chose. Foreign, or Domestic. It could be you, just because you wrote the word "Gun", "Kill", or????? once in your lifetime, or what ever they want to use.
IE: NO MORE INNOCENT, UNTILL PROVEN GUILTY!
Guilty, and that's all there is to it. The problem is; no one is applying the Govt's rules, TO THE GOVT Themselves. As seen in "Fast And Furious" lately and throughout recent history. They are going to get as far as we let them, then hang us all, for slavery. Right now we are in a form of slavery already as far as the Govt goes. If you think about it, the US Govt, is just a legal Mob run by legal Mobsters. Plane and simple, do what the **** we tell you or pay the fine, with money or life, not always your choice.
There are those who want to read it in their comfort zone, and there are those who read it from all angles it is written, and whoa, it's not what it appears to be. Even the BEST LAWYER in the world, can not go up against the US Govt and win.
Only Congress can declare war per the United States Constitution.
The WOT is a declared war, that was the other link I posted.
Authorization for Use of Military Force.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40
"(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution."
Please don't take my tone personally or against you, it's not intended to be.
Not at all. I am fiercely jealous of individual freedom, I expected to find something in the NDAA after all the stuff I'd heard. I simply haven't found any suspensions of civil liberties, and in fact it SPECIFICALLY does not change anything for US citizens or people arrested in the US.
The WOT is a declared war, that was the other link I posted.
Authorization for Use of Military Force.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40
"(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution."
It would appear to me at first glance that Congress simply passed the buck to the POTUS while passing this act. It's also far too encompassing in my opinion. Anyone the POTUS determines is a bad guy is a bad guy. I don't have much faith in our President or his decision making abilities.
IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all
necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations,
or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed,
or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent
any future acts of international terrorism against the United States
by such nations, organizations or persons.
No doubt that the prosecution of war against a Nation State is less complicated, but I counter that the other option of treating terrorists as criminals does not fit the actions they have taken against us.
Very interesting article detailing the Presidential War Powers. http://www.tomwoods.com/warpowers/
Tom Woods then goes on to discuss the issue/mop the floor with Mark Levin. http://www.tomwoods.com/levin/
Moose-Knuckle
12-31-11, 11:47
Thanks to HOPLOETHOS for bringing this article to my attention.
Four Star Generals Demand That Obama Veto/Repeal Anti-Constitutional NDAA
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/opinion/guantanamo-forever.html
TurretGunner
12-31-11, 11:52
This country was lost a long time ago. Nothing is going to change the ship from sinking. The corruption is to vast and intertwined in the culture. The people are too fat, lazy, and contempt to do anything about it. The people who truly care and want change for the better are the vast miniority and are getting smaller by the day.
Moose-Knuckle
12-31-11, 12:06
This country was lost a long time ago. Nothing is going to change the ship from sinking. The corruption is to vast and intertwined in the culture. The people are too fat, lazy, and contempt to do anything about it. The people who truly care and want change for the better are the vast miniority and are getting smaller by the day.
Roger that, "Bread and Circuses". . .
Quote from above article: But right now some (?) in Congress are all too willing to undermine our ideals in the name of fighting terrorism. They should remember that American ideals are assets, not liabilities.
I think this is very well stated, but I think it is a lot more than "Some". Thanks for that link.
Obama signed the NDAA into law yesterday. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_DEFENSE_BILL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-12-31-17-42-05
Obama signed the NDAA into law yesterday. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_DEFENSE_BILL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-12-31-17-42-05
Yeah but he also included a "signing statement" saying that his administration would not use it against American citizens in the US... I don't know about you, but I feel SO much better about this now!
Yeah but he also included a "signing statement" saying that his administration would not use it against American citizens in the US... I don't know about you, but I feel SO much better about this now!
He also ran his campaign saying he wouldn't be issuing signing statements. And in fact last week he used a signing statement to move his gun control agenda forward. http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-st-louis/obama-violates-his-own-words-defying-congrss-to-advance-gun-control-agenda
Additional provisions in this bill, including section 8013 of Division A and section 218 of Division F, purport to restrict the use of funds to advance certain legislative positions. I have advised the Congress that I will not construe these provisions as preventing me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibility to recommend to the Congress's consideration such measures as I shall judge necessary and expedient.
Sec. 218. None of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.
I clipped this from an article I was reading about the NDAA and it got me to thinking about how many members of M4C would've been caught in the net or still could be...
Some of the supporters of the NDAA, which essentially nullifies a sizable portion of the Bill of Rights, take comfort in the thought that only swarthy people with Arabic-sounding names could only ever be caught up in such a law: "If you’re not doing anything wrong, you don’t need the Fourth Amendment or the Sixth Amendment."
Such people apparently, don’t remember the 1990s very well when it was all the rage to discuss the grave threat that "militias" posed to American civilization. Then as now, the FBI was hard at work infiltrating militia groups, and then funding and encouraging violence among alleged extremists.
Had the NDAA been around in the days following The Oklahoma City bombing, it is not difficult to imagine the mass incarceration, without trial, of "right wing extremists," most of whom were little more than plump middle-aged men carrying hunting rifles through the forests of the Upper Peninsula.
I now find myself thinking more about the Japanese American citizens who were interned during WWII after FDR signed Executive Order 9066. There are people on this board who were alive then and it can happen again now, don't fool yourself.
QuietShootr
01-03-12, 19:35
I clipped this from an article I was reading about the NDAA and it got me to thinking about how many members of M4C would've been caught in the net or still could be...
I now find myself thinking more about the Japanese American citizens who were interned during WWII after FDR signed Executive Order 9066. There are people on this board who were alive then and it can happen again now, don't fool yourself.
Since the usual suspects seem to be otherwise occupied at the moment:
Tinfoil!! You need medication if you think the U.S. Government doesn't have YOUR best interest at heart, citizen! You must be a pot-smoking felon and probably a meth cooker and chomo if you think the government could possibly organize something like that!!
Since the usual suspects seem to be otherwise occupied at the moment:
Tinfoil!! You need medication if you think the U.S. Government doesn't have YOUR best interest at heart, citizen! You must be a pot-smoking felon and probably a meth cooker and chomo if you think the government could possibly organize something like that!!
And I thought you didn't care. ;)
I personally found this read interesting to me. You can read it however you want, but it is pointing out some good thoughts.
R.I.P. Bill of Rights 1789 - 2011
Sunday, January 01, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)
(NaturalNews) One of the most extraordinary documents in human history -- the Bill of Rights -- has come to an end under President Barack Obama. Derived from sacred principles of natural law, the Bill of Rights has come to a sudden and catastrophic end with the President's signing of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a law that grants the U.S. military the "legal" right to conduct secret kidnappings of U.S. citizens, followed by indefinite detention, interrogation, torture and even murder. This is all conducted completely outside the protection of law, with no jury, no trial, no legal representation and not even any requirement that the government produce evidence against the accused. It is a system of outright government tyranny against the American people, and it effectively nullifies the Bill of Rights.
In what will be remembered as the most traitorous executive signing ever committed against the American people, President Obama signed the bill on New Year's Eve, a time when most Americans were engaged in the consumption of alcohol. It seems appropriate, of course, since no intelligent American could accept the tyranny of this bill if they were sober.
This is the law that will cement Obama's legacy in the history books as the traitor who nullified the Bill of Rights and paved America's pathway down a road of tyranny that will make Nazi Germany's war crimes look like child's play. If Bush had signed a law like this, liberals would have been screaming "impeachment!"
Why the Bill of Rights matters
While the U.S. Constitution already limits the power of federal government, the Bill of Rights is the document that enumerates even more limits of federal government power. In its inception, many argued that a Bill of Rights was completely unnecessary because, they explained, the federal government only has the powers specifically enumerated to it under the U.S. Constitution. There was no need to have a "First Amendment" to protect Free Speech, for example, because there was no power granted to government to diminish Free Speech.
This seems silly today, of course, given the natural tendency of all governments to concentrate power in the hands of the few while destroying the rights and freedoms of their own people. But in the 1780's, whether government could ever become a threat to future freedoms was hotly debated. By 1789, enough revolutionary leaders had agreed on the fundamental principles of a Bill of Rights to sign it into law. Its purpose was to provide additional clarifications on the limitation of government power so that there could be absolutely no question that government could NEVER, under any circumstances, violate these key principles of freedom: Freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, freedom from illegal searches, the right to remain silent, the right to due process under law, and so on.
Of course, today's runaway federal government utterly ignores the limitations placed on it by the founding fathers. It aggressively and criminally seeks to expand its power at all costs, completely ignoring the Bill of Rights and openly violating the limitations of power placed upon it by the United States Constitution. The TSA's illegal searching of air travelers, for example, is a blatant violation of Fourth Amendment rights. The government's hijacking of websites it claims are linking to "copyright infringement" hubs is a blatant violation of First Amendment rights. The government's demand that all Americans be forced to buy private health insurance is a blatant violation of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution -- the "commerce clause."
Now, with the passage of the NDAA, the federal government has torpedoed the entire Bill of Rights, dismissing it completely and effectively promising to violate those rights at will. As of January 1, 2012, we have all been designated enemies of the state. America is the new battleground, and your "right" to due process is null and void.
Remember, this was all done by the very President who promised to close Guantanamo Bay and end secret military prisons. Not only did Obama break that campaign promise (as he has done with nearly ALL his campaign promises), he did exactly the opposite and has now subjected all Americans to the possibility of government-sponsored kidnapping, detainment and torture, all under the very system of secret military prisons he claimed he would close!
"President Obama’s action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Obama's signing statement means nothing
Even while committing an act of pure treason in signing the bill, the unindicted criminal President Obama issued a signing statement that reads, in part, "Moving forward, my administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded..."
Anyone who reads between the lines here realizes the "the flexibility on which our safety depends" means they can interpret the law in any way they want if there is a sufficient amount of fear being created through false flag terror attacks. Astute readers will also notice that Obama's signing statement has no legal binding whatsoever and only refers to Obama's momentary intentions on how he "wishes" to interpret the law. It does not place any limits whatsoever on how a future President might use the law as written.
"The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield," says the ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-s...).
What this means is that the next President could use this law to engage in the most horrific holocaust-scale mass round-up of people the world has ever seen. The NDAA legalizes the crimes of Nazi Germany in America, setting the stage for the mass murder of citizens by a rogue government.
United States of America becomes a rogue nation, operating in violation of international law
Furthermore, the NDAA law as written and signed, is a violation of international law as it does not even adhere to the fundamental agreements of how nations treat prisoners of war:
"...the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war" says the ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-s...).
In 1789, today's NDAA law would have been called "treasonous," and those who voted for it would have been shot dead as traitors. This is not a call for violence, but rather an attempt to provide historical context of just how destructive this law really is. Men and women fought and died for the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. People sacrificed their lives, their safety and risked everything to achieve the freedoms that made America such a great nation. For one President to so callously throw away 222 years of liberty, betraying those great Americans who painstakingly created an extraordinary document limiting the power of government, is equivalent to driving a stake through the heart of the Republic.
In signing this, Obama has proven himself to be the most criminal of all U.S. Presidents, far worse than George W. Bush and a total traitor to the nation and its People. Remember, Obama swore upon a Bible that he would "protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic," and yet he himself has become the enemy of the Constitution by signing a law that overtly and callously nullifies the Bill of Rights.
This is nothing less than an act of war declared on the American people by the executive and legislative branches of government. It remains to be seen whether the judicial branch will go along with it (US Supreme Court).
Origins of the Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights, signed in 1789 by many of the founding fathers of our nation, was based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights, drafted in 1776 and authored largely by George Mason, one of the least-recognized revolutionaries who gave rise to a nation of freedom and liberty.
Mason was a strong advocate of not just states' rights, but of individual rights, and without his influence in 1789, we might not even have a Bill of Rights today (and our nation would have slipped into total government tyranny all the sooner). In fact, he openly opposed ratification of the U.S. Constitution unless it contained a series of amendments now known as the Bill of Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George...)
SECTION ONE of this Virginia declaration of rights states:
"That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." (http://www.constitution.org/bcp/vir...)
Section Three of the declaration speaks to the duty of the Citizens to abolish abusive government:
"That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal."
By any honest measure, today's U.S. government, of course, has overstepped the bounds of its original intent. As Mason wrote over 200 years ago, the People of America now have not merely a right but a duty to "reform, alter or abolish it," to bring government back into alignment with its original purpose -- to protect the rights of the People.
Obama violates his Presidential Oath, sworn before God
Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution spells out the oath of office that every President must take during their swearing in:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
In signing the NDAA law into office, Obama has blatantly and unambiguously violated this sacred oath, meaning that his betrayal is not merely against the American people, but also against the Divine Creator.
Given that the Bill of Rights is an extension of Natural Law which establishes a direct heritage of sovereign power from the Creator to the People, a blatant attack upon the Bill of Rights is, by any account, an attack against the Creator and a violation of universal spiritual principles. Those who attempt to undermine the Bill of Rights are attempting to invalidate the relationship between God and Man, and in doing so, they are identifying themselves as enemies of God and agents of Evil.
Today, as 2012 begins, we are now a nation led by evil, and threatened with total destruction by those who would seek to rule as tyrants. This is America's final hour. We either defend the Republic starting right now, or we lose it forever.
Read the language analysis of WHY and HOW the NDAA applies to American citizens
Many people have been fooled by the obfuscated language of the bill, and they wrongfully believe the NDAA does not apply to American citizens. They have been hoodwinked!
In this follow-up article, I parse the language of the NDAA and explain, in plain language, how and why the NDAA does apply to American citizens:
http://www.naturalnews.com/034538_N...
Also, read this explanation by Rep. Justin Amash, who voted against the bill:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?no...
Make no mistake, folks: The U.S. government has just declared all Americans to be "enemy combatants," and that the USA is now a "battleground" over which the military has total control. We are now a nation living under military dictatorship, whether you realize it or not.
If you think all or parts are bogus, then thats ok. I found this interesting to me. I wont be debating this, just posting what I had sent to me. We all have the freedom from GOD, of Thought/Thinking.
Moose-Knuckle
01-04-12, 02:01
We all have the freedom from GOD, of Thought/Thinking.
Well. . .
At least we use too. :help:
Thanks for sharing.
http://destructionist.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/the-86-senators-who-voted-to-pass-ndaa-need-to-occupy-the-unemployment-line/
The lengthy list of the Senators who passed this bill:
YEAs —86
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gillibrand (D-NY) Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Rubio (R-FL)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Vitter (R-LA)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
http://destructionist.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/the-86-senators-who-voted-to-pass-ndaa-need-to-occupy-the-unemployment-line/
The lengthy list of the Senators who passed this bill:
YEAs —86
"We need to pass the bill in order to find out what's in it." :rolleyes:
Every damn one of them should be fired.
More fun stuff from .Gov and DHS http://www.dailycommercial.com/News/LakeCounty/010412shield
Didn't the Germans have to carry "Papers" around with themselves for ID, under Hitler? This is the exact same damn thing going on here! Stop you anywhere, and ask to see your "Permission Slip".
Belmont31R
01-05-12, 12:58
Another reason in a long list of reasons to stop voting for GOP candidates who push this type of shit.
People have been hammering my rep of this...:D (TX31 John Carter)
Here is a comment he left on facebook
John Carter Not bugging me at all, Missy. Thanks for the comment and concern. While the original version of NDAA did not - and in my opinion could not allow - the military to arrest and indefinitely hold American citizens on U.S. soil, the final language included revisions to absolutely dispel the possibility that the bill could be used for that purpose. I've included the section of the NDAA that explicitly states this below:
SECTION 1031 –AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE
Section 1031 authorized detention
b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (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 forces.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
Give the text of the actual passed bill a look (I believe it's section 1021, not 1031 that authorizes military detention.)
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf
(Ctrl + F and search "1021").
Both 1021 and 1022 which authorizes military detention for terrorists have specific exception clauses and/or paragraphs that exempt citizens and acts committed by legal permanent residents in domestic borders.
In other words, I agree with Todd K. This does not abrogate or delimit pre-existing constitutional rights to due process or other related rights.
In other words, I agree with Todd K. This does not abrogate or delimit pre-existing constitutional rights to due process or other related rights.
Well Constitutional scholars, Generals of our Armed Forces and policiticians on both sides of the aisle disagree with that assessment.
When the gov defines the battlefield location what then ?
When the gov decides who is doing it ?
When the gov decides its over ? Terrorism will never be over therefore the war will never be over and the real enemy and location will be up to them to decide ! Remember what they said about the tea party people and the flyers they put out about people who they did not agree with !
And if I am wearing tin foil how did fast and furious happen ?
This has opened the door for control just like they wanted
The more people who cannot look at things in "Grey Areas", but only B&W, (This is my category until recently) the more they can pull the wool over their eyes. They want you/us to see it in B&W, BUT when the time comes, they will take the gray road, and do what they want, as far as your interpretation: SCREW YOU! IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU, IT'S ABOUT THE GOVT. The only thing the "Subjects are good for, is tax$ and control over". Who are the subjects? It's not those in congress/power. What, you don't think the govt can/will/has done coverups already? If they were wrong: Oh well, just another "Casualty Of War". So sorry.
This philosophy can go write along with "It's better to have it and not need it, than to need it and find out you let someone screw you out of it by believing/trusting". "Trust Me"??? Yah sure, lets play Ostrich. Where's a hole to burry my head in. Oh, I see one, it's rite over there in a congressman's ass!
Always look out side the box, and use caution. People who end up in large leadership positions, usually studied Psychology along the way.
1. When Obama signed it he issued a signing statement that he will not use it against citizens. That says enough right there.
2. My local news interviewed one of our local House of Rep Demorats. He said the bill does include us citizens.
However, interpretation of NDAA is a mute point if this one ever passes. Since in this one, you can be stripped of your citizenship.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1698
S 1698 IS
112th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1698
To add engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
October 12, 2011
Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To add engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Enemy Expatriation Act’.
SEC. 2. LOSS OF NATIONALITY.
(a) In General- Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in each of paragraphs (1) through (6), by striking ‘or’ at the end;
(B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘; or’; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
‘(8) engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
‘(c) For purposes of this section, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war.’.
(b) Technical Amendment- Section 351(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1483(a)) is amended by striking ‘(6) and (7)’ and inserting ‘(6), (7), and (8)’.
Have no fear. None of this affects Jersey Shore, Dancing with the Stars or American Idol.
QuietShootr
01-08-12, 11:02
1. When Obama signed it he issued a signing statement that he will not use it against citizens. That says enough right there.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1698
My wife said, "That's kind of like, 'trust me, I won't cum in your mouth', right?"
My wife said, "That's kind of like, 'trust me, I won't cum in your mouth', right?"
Thanks for the chuckle! :)
Obama made a LOT of promises, as well as BEFORE he was appointed, and did he break even one of those promises? And fools still trust him, and his associates. Yes I said FOOLLLLLSSS.
The only people who can be stripped of their citizenship are those that acquired it through naturalization, i.e. former foreign nationals who adjusted their status from Lawful Permanent Resident to U.S. Citizen. This process has been on the books for decades and every year thousands of people in this category are stripped of their U.S. citizenship and deported back to their country of previous citizenship or nationality. The reason for this usually involves fraud during naturalization, for instance they lied about being a major drug dealer, then were arrested and convicted of being a drug dealer with a pattern of conduct preceding the natz process, so CIS strips them of their citizenship while they are incarcerated and when they finish their prison term, they are deported. This addition to the Act (INA) makes terrorism related charges a mechanism for doing the same thing to new citizens from Mid-East countries.
1. When Obama signed it he issued a signing statement that he will not use it against citizens. That says enough right there.
2. My local news interviewed one of our local House of Rep Demorats. He said the bill does include us citizens.
However, interpretation of NDAA is a mute point if this one ever passes. Since in this one, you can be stripped of your citizenship.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1698
Read closely. It says "Nationals" not "Citizens." Stripping citizenship as a punishment has been held to violate the 8th Amendment as Cruel and Unusual punishment. In other words, it applies to Legal Permanent Residents, who are already at the mercy of Congress to do whatever they like to deport them, anyway.
The only time Citizenship is revocable is when the underlying grounds for citizenship were fraudulently or illegally obtained, i.e. through a sham marriage.
Well Constitutional scholars, Generals of our Armed Forces and policiticians on both sides of the aisle disagree with that assessment.
With all due respect to the SMEs, I like to look at the text myself and make the assessment independently before looking at what those "scholars" and generals have to say. This is the assessment I came up with. I'm sure there are bloggers who disagree, but I'd like to see their specific arguments to the contrary (relying on text, statutory interpretation, etc.) before I change my mind. FWIW.
I'm not a lawyer and wasn't sure of that definition :o
I found this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhqUf9omt54&feature=youtu.be) interesting, as it seemed to answer a major criticism of the law very directly without spin. I think Rep. West is a stand-up guy and a freakin' patriot.
Who would have thought that when we were all in favor of laws to get scumbag child molesters and perverts off the street, prosecutors would then use those same laws to go after someone who took a piss in public and accidentally exposed himself "near" some children?
Who would have thought that in 1986 when Congress passed a bill to enact tougher penalties when criminals used "machine guns" in the commission of their crimes, that some prosecutor would then attempt to use that same law (25 years later) to charge some contractors in Iraq who may or may not have made a bad decision when they came under attack?
I think people see where I am going. Right now our government needs less power to infringe into our lives, not more.
Belmont31R
01-17-12, 00:00
Who would have thought that when we were all in favor of laws to get scumbag child molesters and perverts off the street, prosecutors would then use those same laws to go after someone who took a piss in public and accidentally exposed himself "near" some children?
One of the many reasons Im a libertarian, and enjoyed the hell of out of my social freedoms in Germany. Not that I banged any 'less than 18 year olds' but you could go out and enjoy yourself without the moral police setting you up with a sex crime at every opportunity.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
01-17-12, 02:18
Both of my senators voted for this. When I contacted them and let them know how ****ed up they were, they responded with this "W didnt like the bill and we even tried to change the controversial part. But, in the end, we still voted for it because we support and love the troops! Yay, we're patriotic democrats!".
QuietShootr
01-17-12, 07:30
I was banned from Lightfighter years ago for suggesting that there might be a fight coming at some point, and that I hoped that everyone there would pick the right side. I repeat this now because it seems to be even more timely.
A US citizen exempt?
A Prosecutor say's: A Terrorist: One who uses a gun to accomplish his goal.
"Your Honor, this citizen owns a gun and could use it in an act of terrorism". (Now you are no longer a "Citizen, but a terrorist)
Who is the Govt. going to side with here?
I don't drink the "Warm And Fuzzy Coo-lade" here. Sorry.
Who would have thought that when we were all in favor of laws to get scumbag child molesters and perverts off the street, prosecutors would then use those same laws to go after someone who took a piss in public and accidentally exposed himself "near" some children?
Who would have thought that in 1986 when Congress passed a bill to enact tougher penalties when criminals used "machine guns" in the commission of their crimes, that some prosecutor would then attempt to use that same law (25 years later) to charge some contractors in Iraq who may or may not have made a bad decision when they came under attack?
I think people see where I am going. Right now our government needs less power to infringe into our lives, not more.
Unintended consequences.
Unintended consequences.
The optimist in me says this is the best case scenario.
The pessimist in me says veiled intentions are more likely.
Who would have thought that when we were all in favor of laws to get scumbag child molesters and perverts off the street, prosecutors would then use those same laws to go after someone who took a piss in public and accidentally exposed himself "near" some children?
A buddy and I were out drinking at bars/clubs when we were both 21 over ten years ago. The bars were closing down and we were walking home when he spotted a girl he knew from college. They were talking back and forth and she said something flippant so he turned around, dropped trow and mooned her. Keep in mind that it was about 1:00am on a Saturday & it was all adults out on the streets, no kids. As he was pulling up his pants a plain clothes gentleman grabbed his arm and said 'come with me' and my buddy pulled away and told him in no polite terms to unhand him and who was he to put his hands on him in such a manner. At this point he announced himself as a plain clothes LEO and pointed to others who were in threes and roofs and crap. My buddy was charged with indecent exposure and now over a decade later and married with two kids he has to register as a sex offender. Seem like a government that's just looking out for our best interests as a society & respecting our individual freedoms when no real harm is done?
A buddy and I were out drinking at bars/clubs when we were both 21 over ten years ago. The bars were closing down and we were walking home when he spotted a girl he knew from college. They were talking back and forth and she said something flippant so he turned around, dropped trow and mooned her. Keep in mind that it was about 1:00am on a Saturday & it was all adults out on the streets, no kids. As he was pulling up his pants a plain clothes gentleman grabbed his arm and said 'come with me' and my buddy pulled away and told him in no polite terms to unhand him and who was he to put his hands on him in such a manner. At this point he announced himself as a plain clothes LEO and pointed to others who were in threes and roofs and crap. My buddy was charged with indecent exposure and now over a decade later and married with two kids he has to register as a sex offender. Seem like a government that's just looking out for our best interests as a society & respecting our individual freedoms when no real harm is done?
What a bunch of bullshit. He could probably fight that, but he should not have to.
QuietShootr
01-17-12, 15:02
What a bunch of bullshit. He could probably fight that, but he should not have to.
+1000. What, did everyone who ever took a piss outside commit a sex offense?
What a bunch of bullshit. He could probably fight that, but he should not have to.
Justice exists so long as you can afford it.
+1000. What, did everyone who ever took a piss outside commit a sex offense?
Yep, that's how it works. Easier to prove the need for money when there's new laws to enforce and new crime to fight.
ForTehNguyen
01-18-12, 13:07
Ron Paul NDAA Floor Speech Jan 18 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tg69QM1yXQQ
Easier to prove the need for money when there's new laws to enforce and new crime to fight. There is much I want to say on this.
There is much I want to say on this.
By all means, the podium is yours.
By all means, the podium is yours.
Would not be my best career move.;)
Would not be my best career move.;)
You can't make an observation based opinion on an online forum w/o affecting your career? You need a better alias. :D
You can't make an observation based opinion on an online forum w/o affecting your career? You need a better alias. :D
Aliases work better when you don go and tell some people who you really are. Oops......ah well keeps me honest ..
I guess.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.