Explaining to a 5-Year Old Why the Indefinite Detention Bill DOES Apply to U.S. Citizens on U.S. Soil
Washington’s Blog
Thursday, December 15, 2011
In response to my essay documenting that the indefinite detention bill does apply to American citizens on U.S. soil, a commentator posted:
Can somebody explain to me like I am 5, why [one of the bill's provisions - which discusses U.S. citizens] does not protect citizens?
Yes, let me explain it in words that even a 5-year-old can understand …
The bill says that the military must indefinitely detain anyone SUSPECTED of helping bad guys.
One provision says that the mandatory (“must”) indefinite detention doesn’t apply to U.S. citizens … but the government CAN indefinitely detain any U.S. citizen it feels like without trial, without presenting evidence, without letting the citizen consult with a lawyer, and without even charging the citizen.
This would destroy our Constitutional rights to trial, to face our accuser and to consult with an attorney.
Indeed, it would destroy rights created in England in 1215.
In other words, it’s like saying “you don’t HAVE to lock up Joey for the rest of his life because he called you a mean name, but you CAN lock him away and throw away the key and then falsely accuse him of being a suspected terrorist if it would make you happy”.
Get it?
That is why Congressman Justin Amash wrote:
Senators McCain and Levin have teamed up to promote one of the most anti-liberty pieces of legislation of our lifetime, S 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act. This bill would permit the federal government to indefinitely detain American citizens on American soil, without charge or trial, at the discretion of the President. It is destructive of our Constitution.
… A few commenters have suggested that the dangerous provisions in S 1867 (discussed in my previous post) do not apply to American citizens because of this language in Sec. 1032: “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” This language appears carefully crafted to mislead the public. Note that it does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary.
Amash subsequently wrote:
Pres. Obama and many Members of Congress believe the President ALREADY has the authority the bill grants him. Legally, of course, he does not. This language was inserted to keep proponents and opponents of the bill appeased, while permitting the President to assert that the improper power he has claimed all along is now in statute.
***
They will say that American citizens are specifically exempted under the following language in Sec. 1032: “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” Don’t be fooled. All this says is that the President is not REQUIRED to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trial. It still PERMITS him to do so.
The ACLU notes:
Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.
Article printed from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com
URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/explaining-to-a ... -u-s-soil/
LDS Freedom Forum
Your home for discussing politics, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and the principles of liberty.
Why Indefinite Dentention Bill Does Apply to US Citizens
9 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Why Indefinite Dentention Bill Does Apply to US Citizens
by moonwhim » Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:05 pm
"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer
-
moonwhim
captain of 1,000
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:00 pm
Re: Why Indefinite Dentention Bill Does Apply to US Citizens
by moonwhim » Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:13 pm
The Indefinite Detention Bill DOES Apply to American Citizens on U.S. Soil
Posted on December 14, 2011 by WashingtonsBlog
“Don’t Be Fooled”: The Indefinite Detention Bill DOES Apply to American Citizens
Even at this 11th hour – when all of our liberties and freedom are about to go down the drain – many people still don’t understand that the indefinite detention bill passed by Congress allows indefinite detention of Americans on American soil.
The bill is confusing. As Wired noted on December 1st:
It’s confusing, because two different sections of the bill seem to contradict each other, but in the judgment of the University of Texas’ Robert Chesney — a nonpartisan authority on military detention — “U.S. citizens are included in the grant of detention authority.”
A retired admiral, Judge Advocate General and Dean Emeritus of the University of New Hampshire School of Law also says that it applies to American citizens on American soil.
The ACLU notes:
Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.
But you don’t have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”
Another sponsor of the bill – Senator Levin – has also repeatedly said that the bill applies to American citizens on American soil, citing the Supreme Court case of Hamdi which ruled that American citizens can be treated as enemy combatants:
“The Supreme Court has recently ruled there is no bar to the United States holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant,” said Levin. “This is the Supreme Court speaking.“
Levin again stressed recently that the bill applies to American citizens, and said that it was president Obama who requested that it do so:
Under questioning from Rand Paul, another co-sponsor – John McCain – said that Americans suspected of terrorism could not only be indefinitely detained, but could be sent to Guantanamo:
U.S. Congressman Justin Amash states in a letter to Congress:
The Senate’s [bill] does not even distinguish between American citizens and non-citizens, or between persons caught domestically and abroad. The President’s power, in his discretion, to detain persons he determines have supported associated forces applies just as strongly to Americans seized on U.S. soil as it does to foreigners captured on a far away battlefield.
Two retired 4-star generals (Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar) write in the New York Times:
One provision [in the bill] would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past.
Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson – General Colin Powell’s chief of staff – says that the bill is a big step towards tyranny at home. Congressman Ron Paul says that it will establish martial law in America.
Indeed, Amash accuses lawmakers of attempting to intentionally mislead the American people by writing a bill which appears at first glance to exclude U.S. citizens, when it actually includes us:
Pres. Obama and many Members of Congress believe the President ALREADY has the authority the bill grants him. Legally, of course, he does not. This language was inserted to keep proponents and opponents of the bill appeased, while permitting the President to assert that the improper power he has claimed all along is now in statute.
***
They will say that American citizens are specifically exempted under the following language in Sec. 1032: “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” Don’t be fooled. All this says is that the President is not REQUIRED to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trial. It still PERMITS him to do so.
Update: Constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley writes:
Americans will now be subject to indefinite detention without trial in federal courts in a measure supported by both Democrats and Republicans. It is a curious way to celebrate the 220th anniversary of the Bill of Rights.
***
The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is facially ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality. The Administration and Democratic members are in full spin — using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.
Posted on December 14, 2011 by WashingtonsBlog
“Don’t Be Fooled”: The Indefinite Detention Bill DOES Apply to American Citizens
Even at this 11th hour – when all of our liberties and freedom are about to go down the drain – many people still don’t understand that the indefinite detention bill passed by Congress allows indefinite detention of Americans on American soil.
The bill is confusing. As Wired noted on December 1st:
It’s confusing, because two different sections of the bill seem to contradict each other, but in the judgment of the University of Texas’ Robert Chesney — a nonpartisan authority on military detention — “U.S. citizens are included in the grant of detention authority.”
A retired admiral, Judge Advocate General and Dean Emeritus of the University of New Hampshire School of Law also says that it applies to American citizens on American soil.
The ACLU notes:
Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.
But you don’t have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”
Another sponsor of the bill – Senator Levin – has also repeatedly said that the bill applies to American citizens on American soil, citing the Supreme Court case of Hamdi which ruled that American citizens can be treated as enemy combatants:
“The Supreme Court has recently ruled there is no bar to the United States holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant,” said Levin. “This is the Supreme Court speaking.“
Levin again stressed recently that the bill applies to American citizens, and said that it was president Obama who requested that it do so:
Under questioning from Rand Paul, another co-sponsor – John McCain – said that Americans suspected of terrorism could not only be indefinitely detained, but could be sent to Guantanamo:
U.S. Congressman Justin Amash states in a letter to Congress:
The Senate’s [bill] does not even distinguish between American citizens and non-citizens, or between persons caught domestically and abroad. The President’s power, in his discretion, to detain persons he determines have supported associated forces applies just as strongly to Americans seized on U.S. soil as it does to foreigners captured on a far away battlefield.
Two retired 4-star generals (Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar) write in the New York Times:
One provision [in the bill] would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past.
Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson – General Colin Powell’s chief of staff – says that the bill is a big step towards tyranny at home. Congressman Ron Paul says that it will establish martial law in America.
Indeed, Amash accuses lawmakers of attempting to intentionally mislead the American people by writing a bill which appears at first glance to exclude U.S. citizens, when it actually includes us:
Pres. Obama and many Members of Congress believe the President ALREADY has the authority the bill grants him. Legally, of course, he does not. This language was inserted to keep proponents and opponents of the bill appeased, while permitting the President to assert that the improper power he has claimed all along is now in statute.
***
They will say that American citizens are specifically exempted under the following language in Sec. 1032: “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” Don’t be fooled. All this says is that the President is not REQUIRED to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trial. It still PERMITS him to do so.
Update: Constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley writes:
Americans will now be subject to indefinite detention without trial in federal courts in a measure supported by both Democrats and Republicans. It is a curious way to celebrate the 220th anniversary of the Bill of Rights.
***
The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is facially ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality. The Administration and Democratic members are in full spin — using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.
"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer
-
moonwhim
captain of 1,000
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:00 pm
Re: Why Indefinite Dentention Bill Does Apply to US Citizens
by moonwhim » Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:17 pm
The Death of Rights Enshrined on Bill of Rights Day
220 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified, Congress passes the reconciled NDAA bill ‘legalizing’ the indefinite detention of American citizens.
Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
December 15, 2011
Today is December 15. 220 years ago, a coalition of founding fathers concerned about the over-centralization of power under the United States Constitution as written succeeded at last in adding a Bill of Rights that would protect individual freedoms and limit the reach of the federal government. Thus, ten critical amendments to the Constitution were ratified by the states and entered into law in 1791.
These guaranteed rights, including that of free speech, arms, privacy and due process– among others, have not only been violated by the modern State but trampled upon and trashed through arrogant and unconstitutional legislation, executive orders & statements and a lack of common sense protection in the courts.
But today was the crossing of the Rubicon– in time for the anniversary of the Bill of Rights. The Senate has now passed the reconciled version of the NDAA, earlier passed by the House, putting into law for the first time the asserted “right” of government to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial. Nothing could be more un-American or against the Bill of Rights. The President, reversing his previous ‘threat’ to veto the bill, is now expected to sign the bill. RT appropriately writes:
Exactly 220 years to the date after the Bill of Rights was ratified, the US Senate today voted 86 to 13 in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, allowing the indefinite detention and torture of Americans.
Paul Joseph Watson has already written on how the ACLU and Human Rights Watch organization blasted Obama for his “u-turn” on the vetoing the NDAA bill which contains the provision allowing the indefinite detention of American citizens. He notes that: HRW describes Obama’s about-face as a “historic tragedy for rights”. Indeed. HRW’s executive director Kenneth Roth further stated:
“By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law… In the past, Obama has lauded the importance of being on the right side of history, but today he is definitely on the wrong side.”
But more significantly, Paul Joseph Watson highlights the fact that the Obama Administration was never concerned with rights in the consideration of this bill. He writes, “Obama’s veto threat was never about stopping detention without trial of American citizens, it was about ensuring that the federal government didn’t completely hand such powers over to the U.S. military, and enshrining into law Obama’s unconstitutional policy of targeting Americans as terrorists without the legal requirement to offer any proof.”
Like other presidents who’ve moved the football of executive overreach down the field, President Obama and his administration advisors wanted to maintain the appearance of the president’s prerogative to selectively detain Americans without trial. What George W. Bush controversially did to accused and/or potential terrorists via the War on Terror by denying them any pretense of due process, Obama has now brought to the homeland.
It is indeed a dark day for America.
Similar/Related Articles
Obama’s New Bill of Rights
H.J.res. 62. Amending the Constitution to end states rights?
Obama’s U-Turn On Indefinite Detention Bill a “Historic Tragedy” For Rights
Explaining to a 5-Year Old Why the Indefinite Detention Bill DOES Apply to U.S. Citizens on U.S. Soil
‘Indefinite Detention’ Bill Passes Senate 93-7
40 Members of Congress Protest ‘Indefinite Detention’ Bill
Gingrich Advocates Trashing Fourth Amendment and Bill of Rights
The Continuing Erosion of the Bill of Rights
Sen. DeMint: Ratifying U.N. Children’s Rights Treaty Would Turn Parental Rights ‘Over to International Community’
Rachel Maddow: Enemy of Liberty and the Bill of Rights
Palin, Romney, GOP vs. the Bill of Rights
Senate Bill Would Have Allowed Americans to be Detained Even After They Had Been Found Innocent
Article printed from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com
URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/the-death-of-ri ... ights-day/
220 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified, Congress passes the reconciled NDAA bill ‘legalizing’ the indefinite detention of American citizens.
Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
December 15, 2011
Today is December 15. 220 years ago, a coalition of founding fathers concerned about the over-centralization of power under the United States Constitution as written succeeded at last in adding a Bill of Rights that would protect individual freedoms and limit the reach of the federal government. Thus, ten critical amendments to the Constitution were ratified by the states and entered into law in 1791.
These guaranteed rights, including that of free speech, arms, privacy and due process– among others, have not only been violated by the modern State but trampled upon and trashed through arrogant and unconstitutional legislation, executive orders & statements and a lack of common sense protection in the courts.
But today was the crossing of the Rubicon– in time for the anniversary of the Bill of Rights. The Senate has now passed the reconciled version of the NDAA, earlier passed by the House, putting into law for the first time the asserted “right” of government to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial. Nothing could be more un-American or against the Bill of Rights. The President, reversing his previous ‘threat’ to veto the bill, is now expected to sign the bill. RT appropriately writes:
Exactly 220 years to the date after the Bill of Rights was ratified, the US Senate today voted 86 to 13 in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, allowing the indefinite detention and torture of Americans.
Paul Joseph Watson has already written on how the ACLU and Human Rights Watch organization blasted Obama for his “u-turn” on the vetoing the NDAA bill which contains the provision allowing the indefinite detention of American citizens. He notes that: HRW describes Obama’s about-face as a “historic tragedy for rights”. Indeed. HRW’s executive director Kenneth Roth further stated:
“By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law… In the past, Obama has lauded the importance of being on the right side of history, but today he is definitely on the wrong side.”
But more significantly, Paul Joseph Watson highlights the fact that the Obama Administration was never concerned with rights in the consideration of this bill. He writes, “Obama’s veto threat was never about stopping detention without trial of American citizens, it was about ensuring that the federal government didn’t completely hand such powers over to the U.S. military, and enshrining into law Obama’s unconstitutional policy of targeting Americans as terrorists without the legal requirement to offer any proof.”
Like other presidents who’ve moved the football of executive overreach down the field, President Obama and his administration advisors wanted to maintain the appearance of the president’s prerogative to selectively detain Americans without trial. What George W. Bush controversially did to accused and/or potential terrorists via the War on Terror by denying them any pretense of due process, Obama has now brought to the homeland.
It is indeed a dark day for America.
Similar/Related Articles
Obama’s New Bill of Rights
H.J.res. 62. Amending the Constitution to end states rights?
Obama’s U-Turn On Indefinite Detention Bill a “Historic Tragedy” For Rights
Explaining to a 5-Year Old Why the Indefinite Detention Bill DOES Apply to U.S. Citizens on U.S. Soil
‘Indefinite Detention’ Bill Passes Senate 93-7
40 Members of Congress Protest ‘Indefinite Detention’ Bill
Gingrich Advocates Trashing Fourth Amendment and Bill of Rights
The Continuing Erosion of the Bill of Rights
Sen. DeMint: Ratifying U.N. Children’s Rights Treaty Would Turn Parental Rights ‘Over to International Community’
Rachel Maddow: Enemy of Liberty and the Bill of Rights
Palin, Romney, GOP vs. the Bill of Rights
Senate Bill Would Have Allowed Americans to be Detained Even After They Had Been Found Innocent
Article printed from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com
URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/the-death-of-ri ... ights-day/
"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer
-
moonwhim
captain of 1,000
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:00 pm
Re: Why Indefinite Dentention Bill Does Apply to US Citizens
by moonwhim » Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:03 pm
Obama to fill Gitmo with Americans as NDAA law passes
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
(NaturalNews) The right to due process in America is coming to a sudden end as traitorous members of Congress have now passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which gives the U.S. military the power to arrest, detain, interrogate, torture and murder U.S. citizens inside the United States, with no due process.
President Obama, who had previously said he would oppose the bill (because he claimed he already had the power to kill Americans outside the law), now says he will support it and presumably sign it. The White House even issued a statement, which is one of the most astonishing and Big Brother-ish examples of doublespeak yet observed coming out of the Obama administration:
"We have concluded that the language does not challenge or constrain the President's ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the American people, and the President's senior advisors will not recommend a veto..."
Of course, by "protect the American people" what they really mean is that they will shred the Peoples' protections under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
"It's something so radical that it would have been considered crazy had it been pushed by the Bush administration," said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch. "It establishes precisely the kind of system that the United States has consistently urged other countries not to adopt. At a time when the United States is urging Egypt, for example, to scrap its emergency law and military courts, this is not consistent." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/201...)
Obama's Christmas gift to Americans: Complete nullification of the Bill of Rights
Under the NDAA:
• You may be arrested and indefinitely detained merely for being "suspected" of any involvement whatsoever with "terrorism" -- a term that can be twisted to mean almost anything, including protesting against animal testing laboratories or chaining yourself to a tree as an environmental protester.
• You no longer have a right to legal representation.
• You can be held for life without ever being charged for any crime.
• You no longer have a right to a trial by a jury of your peers.
• You can be murdered by the government -- legally! -- without ever being charged with a crime.
• The government does not have to present ANY evidence against you to take all these actions. The government merely has to assert that you are "suspected" of being involved in "terrorism." Such suspicion, of course, could be dreamed up against anyone! Political opponents, Free Speech proponents, protesters, dissenters... anyone at all.
283 traitorous, criminal members of the House voted YES
The complete list of the traitorous, criminal members of the House who voted YES on this bill -- all of which must now be arrested and prosecuted under the laws of the U.S. Constitution -- is available here:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/rol...
Read these names well, because they will go down in history as the seditious elitists who betrayed the American people in their most desperate hour, unleashing total police state tyranny against the innocent.
That these people in Congress somehow think they have the right to strip away the very freedoms GUARNTEED the American people under the U.S. Constitution is an outright violation of their own sworn oaths to protect that Constitution. It is also a deeply spiritual violation of natural law and a fundamental betrayal of the very principles upon which this country is founded.
We warned ya, and you didn't listen
Here at NaturalNews -- and even more so at places like InfoWars.com -- we warned you about this very thing, sometimes screaming at the top of our lungs that if we didn't reverse the Patriot Act and stop the irrational and unrelenting "war on terror," we would all end up slaves under a system of total government tyranny.
The public laughed and mocked us. "That will never happen in America. We're a free country," they insisted. The trolls accused us of fear mongering. The mainstream media said we were crazy.
And now, here we are, with the indefinite military detention bill passed by both houses, and the White House saying it will sign it, granting the military the "administrative right" to kidnap you in the middle of the night, steal you away from your family, throw you in a secret military prison and hold you there for the rest of your life without ever being charged with a crime or given legal representation of any kind.
The time for denial is over, friends. We warned ya! Over and over again, screaming for anyone intelligent enough who might listen, we warned about the Patriot Act, the Bush-era "war on terror," the government's false flag 9/11 attack, the secret military prisons, and the criminality of key people within the Obama administration such as Eric Holder who ran Operation Fast & Furious.
We warned you, and you didn't listen. So now here we are on the verge of the Bill of Rights being nullified by Congress and President Obama, and most of America remains hopelessly asleep at the wheel, having no idea what they have allowed to unfold right in front of them. Tyranny is like a serpent that slithers into your tent, silently and maliciously, coiling around your torso and neck while you sleep. By the time you notice what's happen and try to scream, it's already too late.
People will start to "disappear" across America
So now, thanks to the NDAA and the Obama administration -- which has proven to be a far greater threat to our liberties than even the Bush administration was -- people in America will simply "disappear" in the middle of the night, as covert military teams kidnap them, take them away, and torture them -- all with the full approval of President Obama who once promised he would close Gitmo.
Close it? Heck, this guy's planning on filling Gitmo with Americans!
Every President, when sworn into office, swears upon a bible that they will protect and defend the United States Constitution. The NDDA law is a gross violation of that oath to God, and that makes the passage of this act not merely a betrayal of the American people, but a spiritual betrayal to a higher power. And that's something these members of Congress who voted for this bill will have to answer for.
Their souls are marked for eternity. This is a betrayal of natural law and spiritual truth. It is also, of course, a gross violation of U.S. law and the Constitution itself. That the passage of such a law is even contemplated by members of Congress is, all by itself, such a malicious violation against America that if a law with the exact same wording were proposed in 1789, those who voted for such a law would have been shot on sight and memorialized as criminal traitors to the United States of America.
It only took 222 years for the American people to forget what freedom means, apparently. And now, Americans are so asleep, drugged up and ill-informed that they won't even speak out against the very government that's coiling around their necks and strangling them to death.
"It turns out that destroying the American democratic republic was easy to accomplish," writes David Seaman from BusinessInsider.com (http://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa...). "Simply get the three major cable news networks to blather on about useless bull**** for a few days, while legislators meet in secret behind closed doors to rush through the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), and its evil twin sister, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which is a clever name for an Internet censorship bill straight out of an Orwellian nightmare."
Sources for this story include: (must read)
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/rol...
http://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa...
http://www.unitedliberty.org/articl...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/201...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162...
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12...
http://www.infowars.com/indefinite-...
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/ameri...
http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytime...
http://rt.com/usa/news/anonymous-nd...
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
(NaturalNews) The right to due process in America is coming to a sudden end as traitorous members of Congress have now passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which gives the U.S. military the power to arrest, detain, interrogate, torture and murder U.S. citizens inside the United States, with no due process.
President Obama, who had previously said he would oppose the bill (because he claimed he already had the power to kill Americans outside the law), now says he will support it and presumably sign it. The White House even issued a statement, which is one of the most astonishing and Big Brother-ish examples of doublespeak yet observed coming out of the Obama administration:
"We have concluded that the language does not challenge or constrain the President's ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the American people, and the President's senior advisors will not recommend a veto..."
Of course, by "protect the American people" what they really mean is that they will shred the Peoples' protections under the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
"It's something so radical that it would have been considered crazy had it been pushed by the Bush administration," said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch. "It establishes precisely the kind of system that the United States has consistently urged other countries not to adopt. At a time when the United States is urging Egypt, for example, to scrap its emergency law and military courts, this is not consistent." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/201...)
Obama's Christmas gift to Americans: Complete nullification of the Bill of Rights
Under the NDAA:
• You may be arrested and indefinitely detained merely for being "suspected" of any involvement whatsoever with "terrorism" -- a term that can be twisted to mean almost anything, including protesting against animal testing laboratories or chaining yourself to a tree as an environmental protester.
• You no longer have a right to legal representation.
• You can be held for life without ever being charged for any crime.
• You no longer have a right to a trial by a jury of your peers.
• You can be murdered by the government -- legally! -- without ever being charged with a crime.
• The government does not have to present ANY evidence against you to take all these actions. The government merely has to assert that you are "suspected" of being involved in "terrorism." Such suspicion, of course, could be dreamed up against anyone! Political opponents, Free Speech proponents, protesters, dissenters... anyone at all.
283 traitorous, criminal members of the House voted YES
The complete list of the traitorous, criminal members of the House who voted YES on this bill -- all of which must now be arrested and prosecuted under the laws of the U.S. Constitution -- is available here:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/rol...
Read these names well, because they will go down in history as the seditious elitists who betrayed the American people in their most desperate hour, unleashing total police state tyranny against the innocent.
That these people in Congress somehow think they have the right to strip away the very freedoms GUARNTEED the American people under the U.S. Constitution is an outright violation of their own sworn oaths to protect that Constitution. It is also a deeply spiritual violation of natural law and a fundamental betrayal of the very principles upon which this country is founded.
We warned ya, and you didn't listen
Here at NaturalNews -- and even more so at places like InfoWars.com -- we warned you about this very thing, sometimes screaming at the top of our lungs that if we didn't reverse the Patriot Act and stop the irrational and unrelenting "war on terror," we would all end up slaves under a system of total government tyranny.
The public laughed and mocked us. "That will never happen in America. We're a free country," they insisted. The trolls accused us of fear mongering. The mainstream media said we were crazy.
And now, here we are, with the indefinite military detention bill passed by both houses, and the White House saying it will sign it, granting the military the "administrative right" to kidnap you in the middle of the night, steal you away from your family, throw you in a secret military prison and hold you there for the rest of your life without ever being charged with a crime or given legal representation of any kind.
The time for denial is over, friends. We warned ya! Over and over again, screaming for anyone intelligent enough who might listen, we warned about the Patriot Act, the Bush-era "war on terror," the government's false flag 9/11 attack, the secret military prisons, and the criminality of key people within the Obama administration such as Eric Holder who ran Operation Fast & Furious.
We warned you, and you didn't listen. So now here we are on the verge of the Bill of Rights being nullified by Congress and President Obama, and most of America remains hopelessly asleep at the wheel, having no idea what they have allowed to unfold right in front of them. Tyranny is like a serpent that slithers into your tent, silently and maliciously, coiling around your torso and neck while you sleep. By the time you notice what's happen and try to scream, it's already too late.
People will start to "disappear" across America
So now, thanks to the NDAA and the Obama administration -- which has proven to be a far greater threat to our liberties than even the Bush administration was -- people in America will simply "disappear" in the middle of the night, as covert military teams kidnap them, take them away, and torture them -- all with the full approval of President Obama who once promised he would close Gitmo.
Close it? Heck, this guy's planning on filling Gitmo with Americans!
Every President, when sworn into office, swears upon a bible that they will protect and defend the United States Constitution. The NDDA law is a gross violation of that oath to God, and that makes the passage of this act not merely a betrayal of the American people, but a spiritual betrayal to a higher power. And that's something these members of Congress who voted for this bill will have to answer for.
Their souls are marked for eternity. This is a betrayal of natural law and spiritual truth. It is also, of course, a gross violation of U.S. law and the Constitution itself. That the passage of such a law is even contemplated by members of Congress is, all by itself, such a malicious violation against America that if a law with the exact same wording were proposed in 1789, those who voted for such a law would have been shot on sight and memorialized as criminal traitors to the United States of America.
It only took 222 years for the American people to forget what freedom means, apparently. And now, Americans are so asleep, drugged up and ill-informed that they won't even speak out against the very government that's coiling around their necks and strangling them to death.
"It turns out that destroying the American democratic republic was easy to accomplish," writes David Seaman from BusinessInsider.com (http://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa...). "Simply get the three major cable news networks to blather on about useless bull**** for a few days, while legislators meet in secret behind closed doors to rush through the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), and its evil twin sister, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which is a clever name for an Internet censorship bill straight out of an Orwellian nightmare."
Sources for this story include: (must read)
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/rol...
http://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa...
http://www.unitedliberty.org/articl...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/201...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162...
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12...
http://www.infowars.com/indefinite-...
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/ameri...
http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytime...
http://rt.com/usa/news/anonymous-nd...
"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer
-
moonwhim
captain of 1,000
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:00 pm
Re: Why Indefinite Dentention Bill Does Apply to US Citizens
by moonwhim » Wed Dec 21, 2011 2:43 pm
Three myths about the detention bill
BY GLENN GREENWALD
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_m ... singleton/
Condemnation of President Obama is intense, and growing, as a result of his announced intent to sign into law the indefinite detention bill embedded in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). These denunciations come not only from the nation’s leading civil liberties and human rights groups, but also from the pro-Obama New York Times Editorial Page, which today has a scathing Editorial describing Obama’s stance as “a complete political cave-in, one that reinforces the impression of a fumbling presidency” and lamenting that “the bill has so many other objectionable aspects that we can’t go into them all,” as well as from vocal Obama supporters such as Andrew Sullivan, who wrote yesterday that this episode is “another sign that his campaign pledge to be vigilant about civil liberties in the war on terror was a lie.” In damage control mode, White-House-allied groups are now trying to ride to the rescue with attacks on the ACLU and dismissive belittling of the bill’s dangers.
For that reason, it is very worthwhile to briefly examine — and debunk — the three principal myths being spread by supporters of this bill, and to do so very simply: by citing the relevant provisions of the bill, as well as the relevant passages of the original 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), so that everyone can judge for themselves what this bill actually includes (this is all above and beyond the evidence I assembled in writing about this bill yesterday):
Myth # 1: This bill does not codify indefinite detention
Section 1021 of the NDAA governs, as its title says, “Authority of the Armed Forces to Detain Covered Persons Pursuant to the AUMF.” The first provision — section (a) — explicitly “affirms that the authority of the President” under the AUMF ”includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons.” The next section, (b), defines “covered persons” — i.e., those who can be detained by the U.S. military — as “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.” With regard to those “covered individuals,” this is the power vested in the President by the next section, (c):
It simply cannot be any clearer within the confines of the English language that this bill codifies the power of indefinite detention. It expressly empowers the President — with regard to anyone accused of the acts in section (b) – to detain them “without trial until the end of the hostilities.” That is the very definition of “indefinite detention,” and the statute could not be clearer that it vests this power. Anyone claiming this bill does not codify indefinite detention should be forced to explain how they can claim that in light of this crystal clear provision.
It is true, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, that both the Bush and Obama administrations have argued that the 2001 AUMF implicitly (i.e., silently) already vests the power of indefinite detention in the President, and post-9/11 deferential courts have largely accepted that view (just as the Bush DOJ argued that the 2001 AUMF implicitly (i.e., silently) allowed them to eavesdrop on Americans without the warrants required by law). That’s why the NDAA can state that nothing is intended to expand the 2001 AUMF while achieving exactly that: because the Executive and judicial interpretation being given to the 20o1 AUMF is already so much broader than its language provides.
But this is the first time this power of indefinite detention is being expressly codified by statute (there’s not a word about detention powers in the 2001 AUMF). Indeed, as the ACLU and HRW both pointed out, it’s the first time such powers are being codified in a statute since the McCarthy era Internal Security Act of 1950, about which I wrote yesterday.
Myth #2: The bill does not expand the scope of the War on Terror as defined by the 2001 AUMF
This myth is very easily dispensed with. The scope of the war as defined by the original 2001 AUMF was, at least relative to this new bill, quite specific and narrow. Here’s the full extent of the power the original AUMF granted:
(a) 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.
Under the clear language of the 2001 AUMF, the President’s authorization to use force was explicitly confined to those who (a) helped perpetrate the 9/11 attack or (b) harbored the perpetrators. That’s it. Now look at how much broader the NDAA is with regard to who can be targeted:
Section (1) is basically a re-statement of the 2001 AUMF. But Section (2) is a brand new addition. It allows the President to target not only those who helped perpetrate the 9/11 attacks or those who harbored them, but also: anyone who “substantially supports” such groups and/or “associated forces.” Those are extremely vague terms subject to wild and obvious levels of abuse (see what Law Professor Jonathan Hafetz told me in an interview last week about the dangers of those terms). This is a substantial statutory escalation of the War on Terror and the President’s powers under it, and it occurs more than ten years after 9/11, with Osama bin Laden dead, and with the U.S. Government boasting that virtually all Al Qaeda leaders have been eliminated and the original organization (the one accused of perpetrating 9/11 attack) rendered inoperable.
It is true that both the Bush and Obama administration have long been arguing that the original AUMF should be broadly “interpreted” so as to authorize force against this much larger scope of individuals, despite the complete absence of such language in that original AUMF. That’s how the Obama administration justifies its ongoing bombing of Yemen and Somalia and its killing of people based on the claim that they support groups that did not even exist at the time of 9/11 – i.e., they argue: these new post-9/11 groups we’re targeting are “associated forces” of Al Qaeda and the individuals we’re killing “substantially support” those groups. But this is the first time that Congress has codified that wildly expanded definition of the Enemy in the War on Terror. And all anyone has to do to see that is compare the old AUMF with the new one in the NDAA.
Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill
This is simply false, at least when expressed so definitively and without caveats. The bill is purposely muddled on this issue which is what is enabling the falsehood.
There are two separate indefinite military detention provisions in this bill. The first, Section 1021, authorizes indefinite detention for the broad definition of “covered persons” discussed above in the prior point. And that section does provide that “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.” So that section contains a disclaimer regarding an intention to expand detention powers for U.S. citizens, but does so only for the powers vested by that specific section. More important, the exclusion appears to extend only to U.S. citizens “captured or arrested in the United States” — meaning that the powers of indefinite detention vested by that section apply to U.S. citizens captured anywhere abroad (there is some grammatical vagueness on this point, but at the very least, there is a viable argument that the detention power in this section applies to U.S. citizens captured abroad).
But the next section, Section 1022, is a different story. That section specifically deals with a smaller category of people than the broad group covered by 1021: namely, anyone whom the President determines is “a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force” and “participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.” For those persons, section (a) not only authorizes, but requires (absent a Presidential waiver), that they be held “in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.” The section title is “Military Custody for Foreign Al Qaeda Terrorists,” but the definition of who it covers does not exclude U.S. citizens or include any requirement of foreignness.
That section — 1022 — does not contain the broad disclaimer regarding U.S. citizens that 1021 contains. Instead, it simply says that the requirement of military detention does not apply to U.S. citizens, but it does not exclude U.S. citizens from the authority, the option, to hold them in military custody. Here is what it says:
The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.
The most important point on this issue is the same as underscored in the prior two points: the “compromise” reached by Congress includes language preserving the status quo. That’s because the Obama administration already argues that the original 2001 AUMF authorizes them to act against U.S. citizens (obviously, if they believe they have the power to target U.S. citizens for assassination, then they believe they have the power to detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants). The proof that this bill does not expressly exempt U.S. citizens or those captured on U.S. soil is that amendments offered by Sen. Feinstein providing expressly for those exemptions were rejected. The “compromise” was to preserve the status quo by including the provision that the bill is not intended to alter it with regard to American citizens, but that’s because proponents of broad detention powers are confident that the status quo already permits such detention.
In sum, there is simply no question that this bill codifies indefinite detention without trial (Myth 1). There is no question that it significantly expands the statutory definitions of the War on Terror and those who can be targeted as part of it (Myth 2). The issue of application to U.S. citizens (Myth 3) is purposely muddled — that’s why Feinstein’s amendments were rejected — and there is consequently no doubt this bill can and will be used by the U.S. Government (under this President or a future one) to bolster its argument that it is empowered to indefinitely detain even U.S. citizens without a trial (NYT Editorial: “The legislation could also give future presidents the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial”; Sen. Bernie Sanders: “This bill also contains misguided provisions that in the name of fighting terrorism essentially authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charges”).
Even if it were true that this bill changes nothing when compared to how the Executive Branch has been interpreting and exercising the powers of the old AUMF, there are serious dangers and harms from having Congress — with bipartisan sponsors, a Democratic Senate and a GOP House — put its institutional, statutory weight behind powers previously claimed and seized by the President alone. That codification entrenches these powers. As the New York Times Editorial today put it: the bill contains “terrible new measures that will make indefinite detention and military trials a permanent part of American law.”
What’s particularly ironic (and revealing) about all of this is that former White House counsel Greg Craig assured The New Yorker‘s Jane Mayer back in February, 2009 that it’s “hard to imagine Barack Obama as the first President of the United States to introduce a preventive-detention law.” Four months later, President Obama proposed exactly such a law — one that The New York Times described as “a departure from the way this country sees itself, as a place where people in the grip of the government either face criminal charges or walk free” — and now he will sign such a scheme into law.
BY GLENN GREENWALD
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_m ... singleton/
Condemnation of President Obama is intense, and growing, as a result of his announced intent to sign into law the indefinite detention bill embedded in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). These denunciations come not only from the nation’s leading civil liberties and human rights groups, but also from the pro-Obama New York Times Editorial Page, which today has a scathing Editorial describing Obama’s stance as “a complete political cave-in, one that reinforces the impression of a fumbling presidency” and lamenting that “the bill has so many other objectionable aspects that we can’t go into them all,” as well as from vocal Obama supporters such as Andrew Sullivan, who wrote yesterday that this episode is “another sign that his campaign pledge to be vigilant about civil liberties in the war on terror was a lie.” In damage control mode, White-House-allied groups are now trying to ride to the rescue with attacks on the ACLU and dismissive belittling of the bill’s dangers.
For that reason, it is very worthwhile to briefly examine — and debunk — the three principal myths being spread by supporters of this bill, and to do so very simply: by citing the relevant provisions of the bill, as well as the relevant passages of the original 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), so that everyone can judge for themselves what this bill actually includes (this is all above and beyond the evidence I assembled in writing about this bill yesterday):
Myth # 1: This bill does not codify indefinite detention
Section 1021 of the NDAA governs, as its title says, “Authority of the Armed Forces to Detain Covered Persons Pursuant to the AUMF.” The first provision — section (a) — explicitly “affirms that the authority of the President” under the AUMF ”includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons.” The next section, (b), defines “covered persons” — i.e., those who can be detained by the U.S. military — as “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.” With regard to those “covered individuals,” this is the power vested in the President by the next section, (c):
It simply cannot be any clearer within the confines of the English language that this bill codifies the power of indefinite detention. It expressly empowers the President — with regard to anyone accused of the acts in section (b) – to detain them “without trial until the end of the hostilities.” That is the very definition of “indefinite detention,” and the statute could not be clearer that it vests this power. Anyone claiming this bill does not codify indefinite detention should be forced to explain how they can claim that in light of this crystal clear provision.
It is true, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, that both the Bush and Obama administrations have argued that the 2001 AUMF implicitly (i.e., silently) already vests the power of indefinite detention in the President, and post-9/11 deferential courts have largely accepted that view (just as the Bush DOJ argued that the 2001 AUMF implicitly (i.e., silently) allowed them to eavesdrop on Americans without the warrants required by law). That’s why the NDAA can state that nothing is intended to expand the 2001 AUMF while achieving exactly that: because the Executive and judicial interpretation being given to the 20o1 AUMF is already so much broader than its language provides.
But this is the first time this power of indefinite detention is being expressly codified by statute (there’s not a word about detention powers in the 2001 AUMF). Indeed, as the ACLU and HRW both pointed out, it’s the first time such powers are being codified in a statute since the McCarthy era Internal Security Act of 1950, about which I wrote yesterday.
Myth #2: The bill does not expand the scope of the War on Terror as defined by the 2001 AUMF
This myth is very easily dispensed with. The scope of the war as defined by the original 2001 AUMF was, at least relative to this new bill, quite specific and narrow. Here’s the full extent of the power the original AUMF granted:
(a) 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.
Under the clear language of the 2001 AUMF, the President’s authorization to use force was explicitly confined to those who (a) helped perpetrate the 9/11 attack or (b) harbored the perpetrators. That’s it. Now look at how much broader the NDAA is with regard to who can be targeted:
Section (1) is basically a re-statement of the 2001 AUMF. But Section (2) is a brand new addition. It allows the President to target not only those who helped perpetrate the 9/11 attacks or those who harbored them, but also: anyone who “substantially supports” such groups and/or “associated forces.” Those are extremely vague terms subject to wild and obvious levels of abuse (see what Law Professor Jonathan Hafetz told me in an interview last week about the dangers of those terms). This is a substantial statutory escalation of the War on Terror and the President’s powers under it, and it occurs more than ten years after 9/11, with Osama bin Laden dead, and with the U.S. Government boasting that virtually all Al Qaeda leaders have been eliminated and the original organization (the one accused of perpetrating 9/11 attack) rendered inoperable.
It is true that both the Bush and Obama administration have long been arguing that the original AUMF should be broadly “interpreted” so as to authorize force against this much larger scope of individuals, despite the complete absence of such language in that original AUMF. That’s how the Obama administration justifies its ongoing bombing of Yemen and Somalia and its killing of people based on the claim that they support groups that did not even exist at the time of 9/11 – i.e., they argue: these new post-9/11 groups we’re targeting are “associated forces” of Al Qaeda and the individuals we’re killing “substantially support” those groups. But this is the first time that Congress has codified that wildly expanded definition of the Enemy in the War on Terror. And all anyone has to do to see that is compare the old AUMF with the new one in the NDAA.
Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill
This is simply false, at least when expressed so definitively and without caveats. The bill is purposely muddled on this issue which is what is enabling the falsehood.
There are two separate indefinite military detention provisions in this bill. The first, Section 1021, authorizes indefinite detention for the broad definition of “covered persons” discussed above in the prior point. And that section does provide that “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.” So that section contains a disclaimer regarding an intention to expand detention powers for U.S. citizens, but does so only for the powers vested by that specific section. More important, the exclusion appears to extend only to U.S. citizens “captured or arrested in the United States” — meaning that the powers of indefinite detention vested by that section apply to U.S. citizens captured anywhere abroad (there is some grammatical vagueness on this point, but at the very least, there is a viable argument that the detention power in this section applies to U.S. citizens captured abroad).
But the next section, Section 1022, is a different story. That section specifically deals with a smaller category of people than the broad group covered by 1021: namely, anyone whom the President determines is “a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force” and “participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.” For those persons, section (a) not only authorizes, but requires (absent a Presidential waiver), that they be held “in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.” The section title is “Military Custody for Foreign Al Qaeda Terrorists,” but the definition of who it covers does not exclude U.S. citizens or include any requirement of foreignness.
That section — 1022 — does not contain the broad disclaimer regarding U.S. citizens that 1021 contains. Instead, it simply says that the requirement of military detention does not apply to U.S. citizens, but it does not exclude U.S. citizens from the authority, the option, to hold them in military custody. Here is what it says:
The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.
The most important point on this issue is the same as underscored in the prior two points: the “compromise” reached by Congress includes language preserving the status quo. That’s because the Obama administration already argues that the original 2001 AUMF authorizes them to act against U.S. citizens (obviously, if they believe they have the power to target U.S. citizens for assassination, then they believe they have the power to detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants). The proof that this bill does not expressly exempt U.S. citizens or those captured on U.S. soil is that amendments offered by Sen. Feinstein providing expressly for those exemptions were rejected. The “compromise” was to preserve the status quo by including the provision that the bill is not intended to alter it with regard to American citizens, but that’s because proponents of broad detention powers are confident that the status quo already permits such detention.
In sum, there is simply no question that this bill codifies indefinite detention without trial (Myth 1). There is no question that it significantly expands the statutory definitions of the War on Terror and those who can be targeted as part of it (Myth 2). The issue of application to U.S. citizens (Myth 3) is purposely muddled — that’s why Feinstein’s amendments were rejected — and there is consequently no doubt this bill can and will be used by the U.S. Government (under this President or a future one) to bolster its argument that it is empowered to indefinitely detain even U.S. citizens without a trial (NYT Editorial: “The legislation could also give future presidents the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial”; Sen. Bernie Sanders: “This bill also contains misguided provisions that in the name of fighting terrorism essentially authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charges”).
Even if it were true that this bill changes nothing when compared to how the Executive Branch has been interpreting and exercising the powers of the old AUMF, there are serious dangers and harms from having Congress — with bipartisan sponsors, a Democratic Senate and a GOP House — put its institutional, statutory weight behind powers previously claimed and seized by the President alone. That codification entrenches these powers. As the New York Times Editorial today put it: the bill contains “terrible new measures that will make indefinite detention and military trials a permanent part of American law.”
What’s particularly ironic (and revealing) about all of this is that former White House counsel Greg Craig assured The New Yorker‘s Jane Mayer back in February, 2009 that it’s “hard to imagine Barack Obama as the first President of the United States to introduce a preventive-detention law.” Four months later, President Obama proposed exactly such a law — one that The New York Times described as “a departure from the way this country sees itself, as a place where people in the grip of the government either face criminal charges or walk free” — and now he will sign such a scheme into law.
"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer
-
moonwhim
captain of 1,000
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:00 pm
Re: Why Indefinite Dentention Bill Does Apply to US Citizens
by Original_Intent » Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:16 pm
I was well aware of myth #3 - Weasel words in the law! And they deliberately wrote it to be misleading! It sounds like it is saying exactly the opposite of what it says - and you have to parse it pretty carefully to see the truth.
-
Original_Intent
captain of 1,000
- Posts: 7524
- Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:35 pm
Re: Why Indefinite Dentention Bill Does Apply to US Citizens
by moonwhim » Sun Dec 25, 2011 12:06 pm
Here is a good short video to send to others:
"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer
-
moonwhim
captain of 1,000
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:00 pm
Re: Why Indefinite Dentention Bill Does Apply to US Citizens
by moonwhim » Mon Dec 26, 2011 4:50 pm
Dec-25-2011 17:57
Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention.
Merry Christmas, US Senate
Ralph Lopez Special to Salem-News.com
The issue of federal official recall has never reached the federal courts.
(HELENA) - Moving quickly on Christmas Day after the US Senate voted 86 - 14 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA) which allows for the indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial, Montanans have announced the launch of recall campaigns against Senators Max Baucus and Jonathan Tester, who voted for the bill.
Montana is one of nine states with provisions that say that the right of recall extends to recalling members of its federal congressional delegation, pursuant to Montana Code 2-16-603, on the grounds of physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of certain felony offenses.
Section 2 of Montana Code 2-16-603 reads:
"(2) A public officer holding an elective office may be recalled by the qualified electors entitled to vote for the elective officer's successor."
The website Ballotpedia.org cites eight other states which allow for the recall of elected federal officials: Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, and Wisconsin. New Jersey's federal recall law was struck down when a NJ state judge ruled that "the federal Constitution does not allow states the power to recall U.S. senators," despite the fact the Constitution explicitly allows, by not disallowing ("prohibited" in the Tenth Amendment,) the states the power to recall US senators and congressmen:
"The powers not...prohibited...are reserved to the States...or to the people." - Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The issue of federal official recall has never reached the federal courts.
Montana law requires grounds for recall to be stated which show conformity to the allowed grounds for recall. The draft language of the Montana petitions, "reason for recall" reads:
"The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees all U.S citizens:
"a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA 2011) permanently abolishes the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, "for the duration of hostilities" in the War on Terror, which was defined by President George W. Bush as "task which does not end" to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.
Those who voted Aye on December 15th, 2011, Bill of Rights Day, for NDAA 2011 have attempted to grant powers which cannot be granted, which violate both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
The Montana Recall Act stipulates that officials including US senators can only be recalled for physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of a felony offense. We the undersigned call for a recall election to be held for Senator Max S. Baucus [and Senator Jonathan Tester] and charge that he has violated his oath of office, to protect and defend the United States Constitution."
Montana residents William Crain and Stewart Rhodes are spearheading the drive. Mr. Crain is an artist. Mr. Rhodes is an attorney, Yale Law School graduate, and the national president of the organization Oath Keepers, who are military and law enforcement officers, both former and active duty, who vow to uphold their Oath to the US Constitution and to disobey illegal orders which constitute attacks on their fellow citizens. Rhodes said:
"These politicians from both parties betrayed our trust, and violated the oath they took to defend the Constitution. It's not about the left or right, it's about our Bill of Rights. Without the Bill of Rights, there is no America. It is the Crown Jewel of our Constitution, and the high-water mark of Western Civilization."
Rhodes noted that:
"Two time Medal of Honor winner Marine General Smedley Butler once said "There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. Time to fight. "
Butler famously ended his career as a Marine General by touring the country with his speech and book denouncing war, "War is a Racket."Butler confessed that he had spent most of his life as a "high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers...a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism..."
Eighteen states at present have recall laws, most of which do not apply to federal officials. For these and other states to recall federal officials, state legislatures would have to first pass or amend such laws.
Rising on the House floor to oppose the bill based on the military detention provisions for Americans, Rep. Tom McClintock said before the House vote:
" today, we who have sworn fealty to that Constitution sit to consider a bill that affirms a power contained in no law and that has the full potential to crack the very foundation of American liberty."
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said in opposing the final NDAA:
”This bill also contains misguided provisions that in the name of fighting terrorism essentially authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charges.”
And in a New York Times op-ed piece by two retired four-star U.S. Marine generals, Charles Krulak and Joseph Hoar, Krulak and Hoar said that "Due process would be a thing of the past."
Montana would be the first recall drive to be launched as a result of the vote for the NDAA military detentions provisions. A number of Facebook pages appeared after the passage of the bill from locations across the country.
References:
Facebook: "Recall Every Congressman Who Voted for the NDAA"
http://www.facebook.com/...
"Recalling Senators and Congressmen"
http://www.uscitizensassociation.com/...
"How to Recall US Senators and Congressmen"
http://recallthetraitors.blogspot.com/...
Special thanks to Daily Kos
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/2 ... -US-Senate
Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention.
Merry Christmas, US Senate
Ralph Lopez Special to Salem-News.com
The issue of federal official recall has never reached the federal courts.
(HELENA) - Moving quickly on Christmas Day after the US Senate voted 86 - 14 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA) which allows for the indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial, Montanans have announced the launch of recall campaigns against Senators Max Baucus and Jonathan Tester, who voted for the bill.
Montana is one of nine states with provisions that say that the right of recall extends to recalling members of its federal congressional delegation, pursuant to Montana Code 2-16-603, on the grounds of physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of certain felony offenses.
Section 2 of Montana Code 2-16-603 reads:
"(2) A public officer holding an elective office may be recalled by the qualified electors entitled to vote for the elective officer's successor."
The website Ballotpedia.org cites eight other states which allow for the recall of elected federal officials: Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, and Wisconsin. New Jersey's federal recall law was struck down when a NJ state judge ruled that "the federal Constitution does not allow states the power to recall U.S. senators," despite the fact the Constitution explicitly allows, by not disallowing ("prohibited" in the Tenth Amendment,) the states the power to recall US senators and congressmen:
"The powers not...prohibited...are reserved to the States...or to the people." - Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The issue of federal official recall has never reached the federal courts.
Montana law requires grounds for recall to be stated which show conformity to the allowed grounds for recall. The draft language of the Montana petitions, "reason for recall" reads:
"The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees all U.S citizens:
"a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA 2011) permanently abolishes the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, "for the duration of hostilities" in the War on Terror, which was defined by President George W. Bush as "task which does not end" to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.
Those who voted Aye on December 15th, 2011, Bill of Rights Day, for NDAA 2011 have attempted to grant powers which cannot be granted, which violate both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
The Montana Recall Act stipulates that officials including US senators can only be recalled for physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of a felony offense. We the undersigned call for a recall election to be held for Senator Max S. Baucus [and Senator Jonathan Tester] and charge that he has violated his oath of office, to protect and defend the United States Constitution."
Montana residents William Crain and Stewart Rhodes are spearheading the drive. Mr. Crain is an artist. Mr. Rhodes is an attorney, Yale Law School graduate, and the national president of the organization Oath Keepers, who are military and law enforcement officers, both former and active duty, who vow to uphold their Oath to the US Constitution and to disobey illegal orders which constitute attacks on their fellow citizens. Rhodes said:
"These politicians from both parties betrayed our trust, and violated the oath they took to defend the Constitution. It's not about the left or right, it's about our Bill of Rights. Without the Bill of Rights, there is no America. It is the Crown Jewel of our Constitution, and the high-water mark of Western Civilization."
Rhodes noted that:
"Two time Medal of Honor winner Marine General Smedley Butler once said "There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. Time to fight. "
Butler famously ended his career as a Marine General by touring the country with his speech and book denouncing war, "War is a Racket."Butler confessed that he had spent most of his life as a "high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers...a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism..."
Eighteen states at present have recall laws, most of which do not apply to federal officials. For these and other states to recall federal officials, state legislatures would have to first pass or amend such laws.
Rising on the House floor to oppose the bill based on the military detention provisions for Americans, Rep. Tom McClintock said before the House vote:
" today, we who have sworn fealty to that Constitution sit to consider a bill that affirms a power contained in no law and that has the full potential to crack the very foundation of American liberty."
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said in opposing the final NDAA:
”This bill also contains misguided provisions that in the name of fighting terrorism essentially authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charges.”
And in a New York Times op-ed piece by two retired four-star U.S. Marine generals, Charles Krulak and Joseph Hoar, Krulak and Hoar said that "Due process would be a thing of the past."
Montana would be the first recall drive to be launched as a result of the vote for the NDAA military detentions provisions. A number of Facebook pages appeared after the passage of the bill from locations across the country.
References:
Facebook: "Recall Every Congressman Who Voted for the NDAA"
http://www.facebook.com/...
"Recalling Senators and Congressmen"
http://www.uscitizensassociation.com/...
"How to Recall US Senators and Congressmen"
http://recallthetraitors.blogspot.com/...
Special thanks to Daily Kos
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/2 ... -US-Senate
"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer
-
moonwhim
captain of 1,000
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:00 pm
Re: Why Indefinite Dentention Bill Does Apply to US Citizens
by moonwhim » Wed Dec 28, 2011 10:02 pm
The NDAA Repeals More Rights
Ron Paul
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option= ... &Itemid=69
Little by little, in the name of fighting terrorism, our Bill of Rights is being repealed. The 4th amendment has been rendered toothless by the PATRIOT Act. No more can we truly feel secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects when now there is an exception that fits nearly any excuse for our government to search and seize our property. Of course, the vast majority of Americans may say “I’m not a terrorist, so I have no reason to worry.” However, innocent people are wrongly accused all the time. The Bill of Rights is there precisely because the founders wanted to set a very high bar for the government to overcome in order to deprive an individual of life or liberty. To lower that bar is to endanger everyone. When the bar is low enough to include political enemies, our descent into totalitarianism is virtually assured.
The PATRIOT Act, as bad is its violation of the 4th Amendment, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) continues that slip toward tyranny and in fact accelerates it significantly. The main section of concern, Section 1021 of the NDAA Conference Report, does to the 5th Amendment what the PATRIOT Act does to the 4th. The 5th Amendment is about much more than the right to remain silent in the face of government questioning. It contains very basic and very critical stipulations about due process of law. The government cannot imprison a person for no reason and with no evidence presented or access to legal counsel.
The dangers in the NDAA are its alarmingly vague, undefined criteria for who can be indefinitely detained by the US government without trial. It is now no longer limited to members of al Qaeda or the Taliban, but anyone accused of “substantially supporting” such groups or “associated forces.” How closely associated? And what constitutes "substantial" support? What if it was discovered that someone who committed a terrorist act was once involved with a charity? Or supported a political candidate? Are all donors of that charity or supporters of that candidate now suspect, and subject to indefinite detainment? Is that charity now an associated force?
Additionally, this legislation codifies in law for the first time authority to detain Americans that has to this point only been claimed by President Obama. According to subsection (e) of section 1021, “[n]othing 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 means the president’s widely expanded view of his own authority to detain Americans indefinitely even on American soil is for the first time in this legislation codified in law. That should chill all of us to our cores.
The Bill of Rights has no exemptions for "really bad people" or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. That is not a weakness in our legal system; it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the bill of rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war, and the entire Unites States is a battlefield in the War on Terror. This is a very dangerous development indeed. Beware.
Ron Paul
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option= ... &Itemid=69
Little by little, in the name of fighting terrorism, our Bill of Rights is being repealed. The 4th amendment has been rendered toothless by the PATRIOT Act. No more can we truly feel secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects when now there is an exception that fits nearly any excuse for our government to search and seize our property. Of course, the vast majority of Americans may say “I’m not a terrorist, so I have no reason to worry.” However, innocent people are wrongly accused all the time. The Bill of Rights is there precisely because the founders wanted to set a very high bar for the government to overcome in order to deprive an individual of life or liberty. To lower that bar is to endanger everyone. When the bar is low enough to include political enemies, our descent into totalitarianism is virtually assured.
The PATRIOT Act, as bad is its violation of the 4th Amendment, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) continues that slip toward tyranny and in fact accelerates it significantly. The main section of concern, Section 1021 of the NDAA Conference Report, does to the 5th Amendment what the PATRIOT Act does to the 4th. The 5th Amendment is about much more than the right to remain silent in the face of government questioning. It contains very basic and very critical stipulations about due process of law. The government cannot imprison a person for no reason and with no evidence presented or access to legal counsel.
The dangers in the NDAA are its alarmingly vague, undefined criteria for who can be indefinitely detained by the US government without trial. It is now no longer limited to members of al Qaeda or the Taliban, but anyone accused of “substantially supporting” such groups or “associated forces.” How closely associated? And what constitutes "substantial" support? What if it was discovered that someone who committed a terrorist act was once involved with a charity? Or supported a political candidate? Are all donors of that charity or supporters of that candidate now suspect, and subject to indefinite detainment? Is that charity now an associated force?
Additionally, this legislation codifies in law for the first time authority to detain Americans that has to this point only been claimed by President Obama. According to subsection (e) of section 1021, “[n]othing 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 means the president’s widely expanded view of his own authority to detain Americans indefinitely even on American soil is for the first time in this legislation codified in law. That should chill all of us to our cores.
The Bill of Rights has no exemptions for "really bad people" or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. That is not a weakness in our legal system; it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the bill of rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war, and the entire Unites States is a battlefield in the War on Terror. This is a very dangerous development indeed. Beware.
"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer
-
moonwhim
captain of 1,000
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:00 pm
9 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Return to Political/Economic Secret Combinations
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group and Linode. | FAQ | | The team
FeedNewsAll forumsNew TopicsActive TopicsPolitical/Economic Secret CombinationsWhy Indefinite Dentention Bill Does Apply to US Citizens
LDSFreedomForum.com does not necessarily agree with all content on this forum. This is not an official site of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The views and content on this site reflect only the opinions and teachings of the authors of the respective content contained herein.
