National Defense Authorization Act of 2012: A Call To Action

[Crazy Quilt]

I respect what you're saying Marvolo.

 

[Marvolo]

I think we have the same feelings about this weve just got some differing ideas on certain points.

Main thing we both agree on i think is that the American public does have to wake up. The control and leeway weve given the government is too much. Hell off topic but the gas tax in North Carolina is outrageous and the highest in the country but we just keep letting them raise it. I wish the people of my state would put their foot down and tell them to get outa here with that ****.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

You missed my meaning with the last bit. I'm saying its ridiculous people are all of a sudden scared by this legislation but have for years ignored the other corrupt goings on in this country. People should have never allowed the half the legislation put in effect since 9/11. Its like the sheep are waking up. I don't however think fear is the proper response. Awareness and action yes but fear not at all

Ahh, okay, fair enough. It's true that the NDAA does not officially mark the end of democracy in the United States or the imposition of tyranny, but it certainly accelerates a process that has been going on for over 10 years now: further increasing the vast powers of the president, and further eroding civil liberties and the rule of law.

 

[roach]

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/

 

[Crazy Quilt]

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/

They are almost verbatim the same. The NDAA is really a codification in statute of the existing authority the administration claims. It puts Congress’s stamp of approval behind that claim for the first time, and that’s no small thing. But it does not–notwithstanding the widespread belief to the contrary–expand it.

Codifying an unconstitutional, illegal power grab by the executive branch in the name of national security is most certainly a form of expansion. It gives them more legal cover to violate civil liberties.




http://www.naturalnews.com/034538_NDAA_American_citizens_indefinite_detainment.html


"This is, naturally, part of the side effect of having such a dumbed-down education system where people can't even parse the English language anymore. If you read the bill and understand what it says, it clearly offers absolutely no protections of U.S. citizens. In fact, it affirms that Americans are subjected to indefinite detainment under "existing authorities."

Let's parse it intelligently, shall we?

First off, the offending section of the bill that used to be called 1031 was moved to 1021. Here is the title:

(http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-...)

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

The two relevant sections to consider are titled and stated as follows;

(d) CONSTRUCTION. -- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

By PARSING the language here, we must split it into two sentences based on the "or" operator. This statement essentially means:

• Nothing in this section is intended to LIMIT the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

• Nothing in this section is intended to EXPAND the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

In other words, this section places no limits whatsoever of the "authority of the President" to use military force (against American citizens). Keep that in mind as you read the next section:

(e) AUTHORITIES. -- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

This section "e" is the section that the hoodwinked people on the internet are running around saying "protects American citizens" from the NDAA. But where do they dream up such language? If you read section (e) again, you'll discover it says nothing whatsoever about protecting American citizens from the NDAA. Instead, here's what it really says when parsed into two sentences based on the "or" operator:

• Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing LAW 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.

• Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing 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, section (e) only says that it does not alter "existing authorities" relating to the detention of US citizens.

So to answer the question about whether this affects U.S. citizens, you have to understand "existing authorities."

What are those "existing authorities?"

Existing authorities already allow indefinite detainment and the killing of American citizens

As everyone who studies history well knows, the Patriot Act already establishes an "existing authority" that anyone suspected of being involved in terrorist-related activities can be arrested and detained without trial. If you don't believe me, just Google it yourself. This is not a debated issue; it's widely recognized.

Furthermore, President Obama already insists that he has the authority to kill American citizens merely by decree! As Reuters reported on October 5, 2011, a "secret panel" of government officials (who report to the President) can decide to place an American citizen on a "kill list" and then murder that person, without trial, without due process, and without even being arrested. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011...)

Importantly, as Reuters reports, "Two principal legal theories were advanced [in support of the kill list authority] -- first, that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001."

Are you getting this yet? So the authority ALREADY exists for the President to order the killing of an American citizen. All that is required is that they be suspected of being involved in terrorism in any way, and not a shred of evidence is required by the government to support that. There is no trial, no arraignment, no evidence and not even a hearing. You are simply accused and then disappeared.

Thus, the authority already exists, you see, and the NDAA openly states that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing AUTHORITIES..."

In other words, the NDAA does nothing to protect American citizens, and it piggy-backs on the Patriot Act as well as Obama's executive "kill list" justifications to essentially place all Americans in the crosshairs of government murderers or military action.

Rep. Justin Amash, a Congressman from Michigan, explains:

The key to subsection 1021(e) is its claim that sec. 1021 does not "affect existing law or authorities" relating to the detention of persons arrested on U.S. soil. If the President's expansive view of his own power were in statute, that statement would be true. Instead, the section codifies the President's view as if it had always existed, authorizing detention of "persons" regardless of citizenship or where they are arrested. It then disingenuously says the bill doesn't change that view.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034538_NDAA_American_citizens_indefinite_detainment.html#ixzz1DgS6zHvb"
​

 

[Destructus86]

Terrorism is a great excuse for removing human rights. At least that's how the government sees it.

 

[mikey1974]

after all,anything in the name of "security" ,right?

the Founding Fathers are rolling over right now....

 

[Pagan]

Ahh, okay, fair enough. It's true that the NDAA does not officially mark the end of democracy in the United States or the imposition of tyranny, but it certainly accelerates a process that has been going on for over 10 years now: further increasing the vast powers of the president, and further eroding civil liberties and the rule of law.

No that was covered by the Citizens United decision.