tagged w/ National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012
-
President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) on December 31, 2011, allowing indefinite detention to be codified into law. As you know, the White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA but reversed course shortly before Congress voted on the final bill. While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use it and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations.
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.
Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again. The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA. In addition, 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.
We are extremely disappointed that President Obama signed this bill even though his administration is already claiming overly-broad detention authority in court. Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back those claims dimmed today. Thankfully we have three branches of government, and the final word on the scope of detention authority belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority. But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAA’s detention authority.
The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.
Learn more about indefinite detention: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
https://secure.aclu.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=UN_email_sign_up&s_subsrc=bor_footer
http://youtu.be/pwyHuFTQeaUPresident Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) on December 31,... more
-
-
Ron Paul Introduces Legislation To Strike NDAA’s Unconstitutional Section 1021
The only Congressman with any BALLSRon Paul Introduces Legislation To Strike NDAA’s Unconstitutional Section 1021... more
-
-
Ron Paul took a day off from the campaign trail on Wednesday, not to pause from politics, but to urge his colleagues on Capitol Hill to overturn the provision in the National Defense Authorization Act that allows indefinite detention for Americans.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, or the NDAA, was inked by President Barack Obama on New Year’s Eve, despite immense opposition from Americans who were concerned by vague language that could allow the commander-in-chief to use military forces to domestically police the United States. Under Section 1021 of the NDAA, any person, US citizen or not, can be held without trial by American armed forces if they are suspected of being engaged in hostilities against the country by al-Qaeda or associated forces.
Opponents of the act — and there are many — have questioned the language of the specific section, as it could be written to allow the president to enforce the law to imprison anyone suspected of any crime that could be considered by the right person in office to be an act of terror. President Obama said that he would not abide by this rule, but despite a signing statement that his administration won’t act in that manner, it does not mean that the promise will be upheld.
ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero called Obama’s approval of the legislation is "a blight on his legacy," insisting that “he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” and the Council on American-Islamic Relations called the bill an “ill-conceived and un-American legislation” that will “forever be seen as a stain on our nation’s history — one that will ultimately be viewed with embarrassment and shame.” Additionally, this week RT reported that noted journalist Chris Hedges has filed a lawsuit against the White House over the legislation, questioning the legality of the authorization and calling it “a catastrophic blow to civil liberties.”
On Wednesday this week, however, Ron Paul spoke from Capitol Hill, not South Carolina where the rest of his Republican Party rivals were campaigning before the state’s primary scheduled for this weekend. While in Washington to vote against raising the debt ceiling, Congressman Ron Paul also used the opportunity to go after Obama for signing the NDAA and offered a proposal that, if passed, would strike Section 1031 off the Act.
The move makes Paul not just the first frontrunner in the race for the GOP nomination to speak out against the act, but the first congressman to openly offer a solution to the legislation since it was authorized into law.
Paul began his address on Wednesday by noting that the National Defense Authorization Act was “quietly signed into law by the president on New Year’s Day,” sarcastically saluting it by adding, “and what a way to usher in a New Year.”
“Section 1021 provides for the possibility of the US military acting as a kind of police force on US soil, apprehending terror suspects – including Americans — and whisking them off to an undisclosed location indefinitely,” said Paul.
“No right to attorney, no right to trial, no day in court.”
While GOP contender Mitt Romney said during a debate from Myrtle Beach, South Carolina last week that he would have also authorized such legislation, Congressman Paul went over his time limit on stage in urging Americans to pay attention to the dangerous provisions included in the Act. In front of the debate crowd, Paul told the US not to lose faith in the country’s judicial system. From Washington only a week later, Congressman Paul asked his peers to think about America’s past once more, asking, “Have we not tried in civilian court and won convictions of hundreds of individuals for terrorist or related activities?” He added to his fellow legislature that this transformation away from a country founded on the ideals of the Constitution would soon lead America on the road to a place no one would wish it goes.
“This is precisely the kind of egregious distortion of justice that Americans have always ridiculed in so many dictatorships overseas,” said Paul, comparing it to the gulag system of the Soviet Union.
“Is this really the kind of United States we want to create in the name of fighting terrorism?” asked the congressman from Texas.
While Hedges attacked Obama in drafting his explanation of the lawsuit, Paul spoke from the Capitol that his own peers in Congress are just as responsible for crafting the NDAA and corrupting others lawmakers into signing it, even as they themselves openly acknowledged the dangers of the act.
“Sadly, too many of my colleagues are too willing to undermine our Constitution to support such outrageous legislation,” said Paul. “One senator even said about American citizens picked up under this section of the NDAA, ‘When they say, “I want my lawyer,” you tell them, “Shut up. You don't get a lawyer.”’ Is this acceptable in someone one who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution?” he asked. The congressman in question was Senator Lindsay Graham, who did indeed have such vile words in encouraging others to sign the Act. “For those American citizens thinking about helping al-Qaeda, please know what will come your way: death; detention; prosecution,” explained Senator Graham while the Act was originally up for discussion.
Sadly, prosecution could very well be the last step in an instance where an American is imprisoned under the NDAA. In Section 1031, citizens can indeed be held indefinitely, and as we’ve learned with the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, that term of detainment could easily extend a decade, if not longer, without a trial ever being ordered. Over 170 prisoners are still held at Gitmo, including some that have been there without charge since the US began installing suspected war criminals there more than ten years ago. Under Section 1031, your neighbor, uncle or yourself could be the next person to don an orange jumpsuit and Ron Paul recognized how detrimental this is to American liberty.
In his closing remarks Wednesday, Paul explained that he was without a doubt opposed to acts of terrorism. “I recognize how critical it is that we identify and apprehend those who are suspected of plotting attacks against Americans. But why do we have so little faith in our justice system?” he asked.
Paul added that he wished to continue going after terrorists, but said, “let us not abandon what is so unique and special about our system of government in the process.”
“I hope my colleagues will join my effort to overturn the shameful Section 1021,” concluded the congressman.
http://rt.com/usa/news/ron-paul-ndaa-detention-209/Ron Paul took a day off from the campaign trail on Wednesday, not to pause from... more
-
-
-
By Eric W. Dolan
Monday, January 16, 2012
Less than a month after the National Defense Authorization Act was signed into law, President Barack Obama faces a lawsuit because of its highly controversial provisions regarding the detention of suspected terrorists.
Attorneys Carl J. Mayer and Bruce I. Afran filed a complaint against Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta Friday in the Southern U.S. District Court in New York City on behalf of journalist Chris Hedges. The complaint states that the law violates the First and Fifth Amendments.
The $662 billion defense spending bill contained a controversial section that required terrorism suspects to be detained by the military without trial, regardless of where they were captured.
Despite language in the law that states it does not affect existing authorities relating to the detention of U.S. citizens or others captured within the U.S., Hedges claims that it still allows the government to detain Americans indefinitely without trial.
“I spent many years in countries where the military had the power to arrest and detain citizens without charge,” Hedges explained at TruthDig. “I have been in some of these jails. I have friends and colleagues who have ‘disappeared’ into military gulags. I know the consequences of granting sweeping and unrestricted policing power to the armed forces of any nation. And while my battle may be quixotic, it is one that has to be fought if we are to have any hope of pulling this country back from corporate fascism.”
While signing the bill, Obama issued a signing statement in which he pledged that the new laws would not violate Americans’ constitutional rights. But human rights advocates said that did not prevent future administrations from abusing the law.
The complaint alleges that Hedges could fall within the scope of the law. As part of his job as a journalist, he has direct communications with persons who are likely to be deemed engaged in hostilities with the United States. The detention provisions cover anyone who has “substantially supported” or “directly supported” “al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”
Hedges said at TruthDig that the controversial bill passed “because the corporations, seeing the unrest in the streets, knowing that things are about to get much worse, worrying that the Occupy movement will expand, do not trust the police to protect them. They want to be able to call in the Army. And now they can.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/16/journalist-chris-hedges-sues-obama-over-national-defense-authorization-act/
"Take your Civil Liberties, at no Cost!!!"By Eric W. Dolan
Monday, January 16, 2012
Less than a month after the National... more
-
-
KB723
-
added this
-
4 months ago
- |
-
On New Year's Eve, President Obama signed into law a bill that eliminates one of the fundamental protections of the U.S. Constitution:
The right for people not to be detained indefinitely by the government without being formally convicted of crimes.
This erosion of the Constitution, which came in the form of new language in the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), allows the government to hold anyone suspected of being associated with terrorism indefinitely, without any form of due process.
No indictment.
No judge or jury.
No evidence.
No trial.
Just an indefinite jail sentence.
In other words:
If someone in the government suspects that you're somehow associated with terrorism, you can be jailed indefinitely in a military prison.
Defenders of this language — including Senators John McCain (R) and Carl Lavin (D), who sponsored it — position it as being tough on terrorism.
And that's fine: Everyone wants to be tough on terrorism.
There are ways of being tough on terrorism that preserve basic rights. Unfortunately, this isn't one of them.
If the government and military never made mistakes--if they never suspected people of being associated with terrorism who aren't actually associated with terrorism--then this language wouldn't be so scary.
But, like anyone else, governments and armed-forces personnel do make mistakes.
Frequently.
So removing the intelligent and reasonable requirement that government suspicions be subjected to due process is frightening.
Of course, in signing the bill, President Obama promised that he would never use it to detain Americans.
While that's comforting, other Presidents may not feel compelled to honor that promise. And human-rights activists who don't believe that basic human rights apply only to American citizens are justifiably upset that America can now detain anyone indefinitely without due process.
(And, by the way, the common pushback that the bill cannot be used to detain Americans is a crock. The bill clearly states that Americans are not "required" to be detained indefinitely. Not being "required" to do something, and "preventing" something are quite different.)
To be clear: This bill isn't just tough on terrorism. It overturns a key part of the Constitution. And it presumes that those who serve in the government and military are always omniscient and perfect and will always use their power for the good of all citizens.
And that presumption, as everyone who has ever watched our government in action knows, is laughable.
Will America be transformed into a brutal police-state by this one bill? Probably not. But the constitutional protections and other checks-and-balances that separate democracies from authoritarian states are rarely eliminated in one fell swoop.
Rather, theses protections are eliminated gradually, by governments and rulers who incrementally grant themselves ever more power.
Taken individually, each incremental change may seem well-meaning and justifiable.
But, gradually, the checks-and-balances that form the basis of a fair society are eliminated.
In signing the NDAA bill, President Obama was presumably yielding to political expediency. The bill, after all, had military funding attached.
But that's no excuse.
The Presidential veto is supposed to function as a critical check-and-balance in our system, to be invoked when Congress collectively goes insane.
And this is one bill that Obama should have vetoed.On New Year's Eve, President Obama signed into law a bill that eliminates one of... more
-
-
...do we as police officers, sheriffs, deputies and others who have taken the oath to uphold and defend the constitution, now turn our back on that very oath? Do we now turn against the very same people that entrusted us with a most sacred duty to serve and protect them? If in fact we follow a rule of law such as this bill enacts, it would mean that the oath that we all took meant nothing. We are obliged to follow all lawful orders given to us, but we cannot do this blindly. http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2012/01/07/ohio-peace-officer-drafts-ndaa-letter-for-police-and-sheriffs/...do we as police officers, sheriffs, deputies and others who have taken the oath to... more
-
-
The absurdity of America today never ceases to amaze. In fact, it has become so elaborate that one might even suggest it has reached a kind of poetic symmetry. When a protest group is willing to stick their necks out to expose the horror of the National Defense Authorization Act and its open door strategy for unconstitutional arrest and indefinite detainment of American citizens, I have to stand up and applaud. This is the kind of protest we need to see all over the country. Of course, any establishment system which is willing to dissolve the inherent liberties of its citizens certainly isn't going to stand by quietly while they blatantly point out the injustice. The Grand Central Terminal action featured in the video below is a perfect example of the swift and immediate stifling of peaceful dissent by an increasingly totalitarian government:
Responses to the event vary. Most people who have actually been exposed to the facts on the NDAA have expressed utter disgust and fury. Rightly so. Some, however, have taken the old elitist mantra, perpetuated effectively by the Neo-Cons in their heyday, that if you are not for the system, then you are a danger to society. Not surprisingly, there are still plenty of useful idiots out there buzzing about like parasites in search of blood.
For those who would applaud these arrests, and suggest that they are well deserved, I would have to ask very pointedly; why?
Is it right to crush free speech as long as the message is offensive to you personally? Do peaceful protestors really present a legitimate threat to our national stability? Are they truly more dangerous than a corrupt government hellbent on assassinating the legal protections of our natural rights which have existed for centuries? Would any supporter of the jackboot methodology like to explain to me in a coherent manner why they believe their skewed world view should be shielded from sincere questions? Please, I can't wait to witness the kind of ridiculous mental gymnastics required to make such arguments palatable. If this kind of ignorance wasn't so destructive, it might actually be entertaining.
The bottom line is, it doesn't matter if these activists were in Grand Central Terminal, on the streets, or busting through the doors of the Oval Office. While New York authorities will attempt to argue property loopholes in free speech protections for Grand Central, or national security because of the vulnerability of the terminal, really, this has nothing to do with either. This is about the removal of American voices from a room, and nothing more. If the message is going to be suppressed by the mainstream media, and shrugged off by representatives, then protesters must go to where the people are, and make the truth heard by whatever means necessary.
Ultimately, activism is about disturbing people's normal mundane routines and shocking them out of their pop-culture stupor, even if for a moment. If we aren't allowed to do that without constant police intervention, then the First Amendment is not being served, and then, my friends, we have a problem, a problem which should be forced down the throat of government with even more public action.
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/01/ndaa-protests-end-in-ironic-swarm-of.htmlThe absurdity of America today never ceases to amaze. In fact, it has become so... more
-
-
We are Anonymous.
We the people, are the words in the beginning of the United States constitution. In respect of the constitution,
We The People! Veto your decision to implement The National Defense Authorization Act.
We The People demand your resignation effective at the end of this term.
We are forced into this position due to your lack of ability to properly represent the people of America. Because of your inability to make a rational decision on behalf of the American people, You are found guilty of domestic terrorism, along with your co defendants, Senators John Mccain, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham. The four of you are also guilty of the implementation of fear in the American people. From this election year forward all decisions regarding the American people will take place with the people of America in the process. The National Defense Authorization Act is a direct violation to the United States constitution. You do not have the right or the authority to implement a bill that contradicts the constitution of the American people. At the end of this term you are hereby to report to Guantanamo Bay military detention center for a maximum of 15 years, This goes to all perpetrators involved in the violation of imposing on American rights. You are the terrorists, You are the threats on the American people. This is not a request, This is an order, From the American people, By the American people, and For the American people. Because We The People believe in the United States constitution, it is not an imperfect document, the words instilled in it depict the Freedom of American citizens. We the people also order the release of private first class Bradley Manning, Effective immediately, his actions of exposing the truth are justified and proof that the United States government is corrupt. We the people demand the removal of the corruption within the United States government, and we the people will remove the corruption from the government. PFC Bradley Manning has done nothing but exhibit the Truth, Courage, and Honor to expose the truth and corruption in our military and the people within the government that try to cover it up. PFC Bradley Manning is a noble human being, his actions are justified and his detention is the work of corruption. Mr. President the fear you have instilled on the American people is unjustifiable and will not be tolerated by the president, senators, governors, or mayor's. You may have been born on American soil, but the actions of your parents relinquishing your American citizenship to reside in Kenya should have made you exempt from the presidency. So in respect to you, effective at the end of this term you are to hereby resign from the presidency. You are hereby ordered to cease all campaigning for a second term. For clarification this has nothing to do with your Muslim faith, this has to do with your citizenship. We the people demand responsibility for the actions taken upon our government, we are taught from a young age to admit when we are wrong, that same principle applies to the United States government as well. We the people of America, demand a presidential pardon for PFC Bradley Manning. PFC Bradley Manning's military record will be cleared of all charges of his actions. We the people will tolerate no unjust laws, and we the people will be included in the decision-making process of the SOPA bill. The United States government does not have the authority to implement a bill that only benefits the motion picture association of America, resulting in the destruction of the Internet, the implementation of this bill will result in $47,000,000 of taxpayer money. The implementation of this bill will only take place if the people of America vote on it, for far too long the people of America have lived by laws proposed by dictators. No more will the people suffer from dictatorship. To the people of America, you are hereby encouraged to demand your right to be part of the voting process that instills laws in the American lawmaking process.
We are Anonymous.
We are legion.
We do not forgive political corruption.
We do not forget your relinquished citizenship.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJSozL5ksl4We are Anonymous.
We the people, are the words in the beginning of the United... more
-
-
In fact he's got enough prisons to lock up everyone he doesn't have on government payroll....
It's called "Washingtonspeak," and it's different than the rest of the English language. President Obama used some of it last week when he agreed to sign the National Defense Authorization Act that allows, among other things, the military to detain American citizens indefinitely, to conduct secret kidnappings of suspected terror suspects (even if they are Americans living on American soil), and murder of same if said suspect is deemed a threat to national security. All without a trial. All without any deference to any other constitutional protection.
Very mindful of what the NDAA truly authorizes, Obama, in signing the legislation, said this: "The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe."
"My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded."
The president went onto say that the provisions in question - specifically Sect. 1021, which he said merely "affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force." He describes the provision as "unnecessary."
President Obama stated: "Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force. Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any 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."
In other words, the president is using Washingtonspeak to say he already had the authority to do what the NDAA law merely "codifies." So the danger that many Americans, lawmakers and advocacy groups are concerned about is why this president claimed the authority to kill an American citizen in Yemen earlier this year who had not actually carried out any terrorist attacks against the U.S., but was only suspected of wrongdoing.
Is that how it works in America today? No more checks and balances? Or, are there checks and balances so long as the president interprets and implements in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends?
"If President Obama were committed to Constitution and international legal norms, he would veto this bill. Instead, he seems more concerned about consolidating the power of the Executive Branch at the cost of our legal and human rights," says the National Lawyers Guild. We agree. This is a terrible law, no matter how Obama and Co. try to spin it.
Sources:
http://obrag.org/?p=51825&cpage=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/w...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...
http://www.naturalnews.com/034560_Obama_NDAA_civil_liberties.htmlIn fact he's got enough prisons to lock up everyone he doesn't have on... more
-
-
Terrorist Lindsey Graham tells the American people why we need Indefinite Detention without a court trial which grants you a right to prove your innocence, to confront the witnesses against you, to submit affidavits, and to be able to have an attorney to represent you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMCDzrZ2KWITerrorist Lindsey Graham tells the American people why we need Indefinite Detention... more
-
-
US President Barack Obama has put pen to paper on a $662 billion defense bill despite serious reservations from critics over the proposed handling of terror suspects. The bill also brought into effect a new round of strict sanctions against Iran.
Some provisions of the bill raise serious concerns among human rights advocates, who argue that they could allow indefinite detention and interrogation of any American citizen suspected to be linked to terrorism. They say it would deny US citizens legal rights protected by the Constitution.
After the bill was approved by Congress in December, Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch said: “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.”
Indeed, President Obama himself has expressed worries about the very legislation he has signed, saying he does not agree with all of it.
“The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it,” he said in Hawaii, where he is spending his vacation. “I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”
Initially the White House threatened to veto the legislation but then pulled back after Congress made last-minute revisions.
Supporters of the legislation have said it codifies current arrangements such as the indefinite detention of terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
Obama also brought into force the latest round of tough sanctions against Iran, targeting its Central Bank in an effort to block Tehran’s ability to fund its nuclear enrichment program.
The new sanctions could make it almost impossible for most refiners to buy crude from Iran, whose economy is mostly dependent on its oil exports.
Author and radio host Stephen Lendman told RT the move may lead to a US war against Iran.
“Obama is imperial. He is going for one county in the Middle East after another. His policy is ravaging the world,” he claimed.
Lendman says that should the war against Iran start, the entire region could be enflamed. “Russia and China have strategic interests in the region. They may get involved to protect them.”
He believes the real targets for the United States are Russia, because of its military strength, and China, because of its growing economic strength “We are talking about the clash of the Titans. Sooner or later that clash is coming,” he concluded.
http://rt.com/news/obama-signs-defense-bill-087/US President Barack Obama has put pen to paper on a $662 billion defense bill despite... more
-
-
-
An edited video of Carl Levin claiming that Obama wanted the language in the NDAA caused outrage among many Americans, but the full Levin video reveals the opposite.
The YouTube video claimed to be proof that Obama is going to sign a citizen imprisonment law: (VIDEO1)
However, in the first 30 minutes of the debate Sen. Levin stated that the NDAA provisions do not apply to US citizens: (VIDEO2)
Hours prior to the YouTube proof video Sen. Levin stated on the Senate floor that the Obama administration requested that the provision be changed so that it does not apply to American citizens, but he explained the provision wasn’t changed because it already didn’t apply to American citizens, “The administration officials reviewed the draft language for this provision the day before our markup and recommended additional changes. We were able to accommodate those recommendations, except for the administration request that the provision apply only to detainees who are captured overseas. There is a good reason for that. But even here, the difference is relatively modest, because the provision already excludes all U.S. citizens. It also excludes all lawful residents of the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution. The only covered persons left are those who are illegally in this country or who arrive as tourists or on some other short-term basis, and that is a small remaining category, but an important one, because it includes the terrorists who clandestinely arrive in the United States with the objective of attacking military or other targets here.”
People need to stop believing everything they read from certain pundits and every claim made in a two minute video.
Yes, NDAA was poorly written originally and even after the changes is a crappy bill; it was written in the Senate Armed Services Committee (McCain/Graham- hello), and as such is a nod to Republican authoritarian stances of the Bush administration. It was co-authored by a Democrat, whom many saw in the above shortened video from C-SPAN claiming the President had asked for “this language”.
Of course, the President did not ask for this language, and this is a matter of record, see the November Senate Armed Services Committee mark up of their original NDAA bill referred to by Levin with objections from Obama:
"---
The new bill would also clarify a number of provisions addressing detainee matters in an effort to address concerns raised by the Administration and others. As requested by the Administration, the new bill would clarify that the section providing detention authority does not expand the existing authority to detain under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Force and make Guantanamo- related restrictions one-year requirements instead of permanent restrictions.
The new bill would also modify a provision requiring military custody of al Qaeda members who attack the United States (subject to a national security waiver) to clarify the President’s authority to decide who makes determinations of coverage, how they are made, and when they are made. As modified, the provision makes it clear that these determinations will not interfere with any ongoing law enforcement operations or interrogations. Under the modified provision, the Executive Branch has the flexibility to keep a covered detainee in civilian custody pursuant to a national security determination, or to transfer a military detainee for trial in the civilian courts. The Administration agreed to have military custody apply to al Qaeda members captured outside the United States (subject to a national security waiver) but disagrees with the committee decision not to preclude the application of the provision inside the United States.
---"
You might be wondering why the video was edited to lead you to believe that he did. That’s a great question.
You might also be asking yourself if the same people who were so willing to believe the author of the bill, Carl Levin, will be as willing to believe Levin’s full statement, in which he clearly says that the President did not want this language.
Had Obama not objected to the language, we would be stuck with the original bill since 83 senators voted yes on the original bill which also passed through the Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously.
People should be asking themselves about the agenda behind not holding the authors of the bill and indeed the Senate accountable for the language in this bill, as it is the same Senate who refused to fund Obama’s executive order to close Gitmo. We note their attempt to run an end-game around Obama’s push for civilian courts and their attempt to slide in permanent changes to restrictions regarding Gitmo. The President objected to those permanent changes.
One would think that anyone who cared about the issue of closing Gitmo would be up in arms at the Senators’ attempt to use a funding bill to get around Obama’s attempts to get around their refusal to fund the closure of Gitmo.
We are in no way defending NDAA. However, the language was changed, and when taken in total (instead of parsed), courtesy of Mother Jones:
"---
It does not, contrary to what many media outlets have reported, authorize the president to indefinitely detain without trial an American citizen suspected of terrorism who is captured in the US. A last minute compromise amendment adopted in the Senate, whose language was retained in the final bill, leaves it up to the courts to decide if the president has that power, should a future president try to exercise it. But if a future president does try to assert the authority to detain an American citizen without charge or trial, it won’t be based on the authority in this bill….
The language in the bill that relates to the detention authority as far as US citizens and permanent residents are concerned is, “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.”
---"
The bill is still rotten. It takes us in the wrong direction, moving us toward the militarization rather than the civilian courts this President and the majority of the American people desire. The bill represents the Republican approach to national security; one that the American people soundly rejected in 2008. Luckily the President got the language changed, because even if he chose to veto it, it would be for naught, as the Senate had 83 votes for it and it takes only 67 to override a Presidential veto.
In the House the first NDAA vote was 322-96. The final vote was 283-136 with 43 Republicans voting no. If Obama would have vetoed and 35 of those 43 Republicans flipped to yes, the House would have had the votes to override a presidential veto.
The real focus should be on why this bill was written in this way in the first place, when we the people were very clear about wanting civilian trials, and this president has been clear about his desire to close Gitmo.
In the meantime, we urge you to watch the entire C-SPAN video of Levin, lest we all be Breitbarted, because it matters that we are all clear on exactly who is trying to take our country in the wrong direction.An edited video of Carl Levin claiming that Obama wanted the language in the NDAA... more
-
-
This represents the complete destruction of everything that America is supposed to stand for, the most essential of rights have been stripped away and we are left wondering what the traitors in Washington will do next. It has become painfully clear that the true terrorists are not hiding in caves in Afghanistan shooting at NATO troops with rusted second-hand assault rifles, but instead wear $5,000 suits and stroll happily through the halls of power in the United States. http://endthelie.com/2011/12/16/the-end-of-america-house-and-senate-pass-final-version-of-ndaa/#axzz1gwTp1PWxThis represents the complete destruction of everything that America is supposed to... more
-
-
Joe Rogan & Duncan Trussell on the National Defense Authorization Act
-
-
Cenk is steamed to say the least!
-
-
Leen61
-
added this
-
6 months ago
- |
-
THIS EXAMPLE VIDEO IS AN ''EXAMPLE'' OF WHAT THEY CAN DO LEGALLY NOW, READ INFO BELOW:
Many of us have wondered if directed to; would our own military turn on us? It appears that this is the plan and has been all along, yet the question remains......would they actually do it if ordered to?
S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill. Senators Carl Levin (D) MI and John McCain (R) AZ, are bringing this bill to the Senate floor on Monday after having held secret committee meetings while never holding even one hearing on this bill which authorizes military action against US citizens, right here in the United States.
While the bill appears on the surface to be about authorizing defense funding for the illegal wars, the ongoing unwarranted surveillance of the US population and the continuing violations of the 4th Amendment as applied to US citizens, many of the provisions of the bill do not pertain to unidentifiable terrorists or any other villain carefully crafted to terrorize the country. The fact is, as a result of the false flag attacks on 9/11, we have massive numbers of police state "laws" on the books which created "terrorists" or redefined "terrorist activity" to include everything from political dissent and free speech, even including targeting of US citizens for mentioning or referencing the Constitution or supporting third party, non-approved candidates for public office.
When this bill passes with these police state provisions included (I believe it will) you can expect your senator who voted "yes" on the bill to maintain that they only did so because otherwise the funding for the wars would have ceased (we could only hope) and they have to continue to fight the terrorists, terrorism, or what ever lame excuse pops into their heads to explain why they voted to pass what is clearly a police state bill.
The bill itself was drafted in secret and I believe it would be to our benefit to know who actually drafted that bill.
Who were the "stakeholders" who actually wrote the bill introduced by these two traitorous senators. We know they didn't write it, they never do. All bills are written by stakeholders who blow through the doors of congress carry bags of cash to buy the support of politicians who make their living selling off our rights along with anything else that isn't nailed down.
S.1867 includes these provisions highlighted by the ACLU:
If enacted, sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA would:
1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside theUnited States;
(2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and
(3) Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hG_R6U_FfesTHIS EXAMPLE VIDEO IS AN ''EXAMPLE'' OF WHAT THEY CAN DO LEGALLY... more
-
-
In my last article called Setting The Record Straight: The Changed Language In The NDAA I said that the NDAA didn’t allow Americans to be detained in sec. 1031 and 1032 but it 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.”
The question I asked was, what does EXISTING law say about the detention of American citizens. That is what we need to be concerned with. If existing law states American citizens can be detained indefinitely, by the military, that is the law or laws that need to be changed, rather than this current appropriations act.
Senator Dianne Feinstein just released this bill called ‘‘Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011’’. This bill may rectify what I was concerned about; existing laws that allow the detaining of American citizens.
"---
Her website states, The Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011 amends the Non-Detention Act of 1971 by providing that a Congressional authorization for the use of military force does not authorize the indefinite detention—without charge or trial—of U.S. citizens who are apprehended domestically.
The Feinstein bill also codifies a “clear-statement rule” that requires Congress to expressly authorize detention authority when it comes to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.
The protections for citizens and lawful permanent residents is limited to those “apprehended in the United States” and excludes citizens who take up arms against the United States on a foreign battlefield, such as Afghanistan.
---"
This perhaps can bring a sigh of relief to progressives like myself, who were extremely concerned about the ramifications of the NDAA and existing laws.In my last article called Setting The Record Straight: The Changed Language In The... more
-
-
