If your state has a recall law which applies to state but not federal officials, the best avenue is to lobby your state representatives and state senators to amend it (these states are Alaska, California, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Rhode Island.) The states which have federal recall laws are Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Combating the Distortions Over NDAA Military Detentions, Does This Mean You? You'd Better Believe It.
Perhaps the only thing more worrisome than the recently passed NDAA provisions for the indefinite military detention of American citizens is the extent and sophistication of the efforts to distort their true meaning in order to lead people to believe that American citizens are excluded. Rep. Justin Amash took a rare bare-knuckled swipe in this most collegial of institutions to say that the NDAA was “carefully crafted to mislead the public.”
That's the equivalent of calling some pretty powerful people whom you work with liars, on whose good graces passing your legislation may depend. It's not done in this place unless it is something you feel very strongly about.
The deceptions in the language of the NDAA, intended to allow defenders to argue that the provisions do not apply to American citizens, center around Sections 1021 and 1022. Section 1021 says in substance:
Most often missed in the discussion, of course, is that all accusations of who is "Al Qaeda" rest solely on the word of the government, with no witnesses, evidence, or any other form of due process available when the government is either wrong, or lying.
Section 1021 also reads: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law." But "existing law," in the words of Sen. Lindsey Graham a key mover of the bill, refers to Padilla v. Rumsfeld in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the government's claim of authority to hold Americans arrested on American soil indefinitely.
Finally Section 1022 "(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS" states:
Never think this does not apply to you. It does. If you want to do something about it go here:
"Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention. Merry Christmas, US Senate,"
here, "Oath Keepers Launches National Effort to Recall and/or Remove Members of Congress Who Voted for NDAA Military Detention. Merry Christmas, U.S. Congress!"
or here, "Facebook: "Recall Every Congressman Who Voted for the NDAA."
That's the equivalent of calling some pretty powerful people whom you work with liars, on whose good graces passing your legislation may depend. It's not done in this place unless it is something you feel very strongly about.
The deceptions in the language of the NDAA, intended to allow defenders to argue that the provisions do not apply to American citizens, center around Sections 1021 and 1022. Section 1021 says in substance:
"Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force ...to detain...A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda...or associated forces...including any person who has...directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces...The disposition of a person...may include...Detention under the law of war...without trial until the end of the hostilities..."This is how a court must read it when the words are parred down to their true meaning, without inoperative subordinate clauses. You can see the full text below. This is taken straight from the final House-Senate Conference Committee report (HR 1540 Conference), which is the language that was passed by the Senate after being passed by the House, on Dec. 15, Bill of Rights Day in an 86 - 14 vote of the Senate which sent it to the president's desk.
20 SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED
21 FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN
22 COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AU-
23 THORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
24 (a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the author-
25 ity of the President to use all necessary and appropriate
1 force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military
2 Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes
3 the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States
4 to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b))
5 pending disposition under the law of war.
6 (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under
7 this section is any person as follows:
8 (1) A person who planned, authorized, com-
9 mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred
10 on September 11, 2001, or harbored those respon-
11 sible for those attacks.
12 (2) A person who was a part of or substantially
13 supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces
14 that are engaged in hostilities against the United
15 States or its coalition partners, including any person
16 who has committed a belligerent act or has directly
17 supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
18 forces.
19 (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The dis-Rep. Tom McClintock opposed the bill on the House floor saying it:
20 position of a person under the law of war as described
21 in subsection (a) may include the following:
22 (1) Detention under the law of war without
23 trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the
24 Authorization for Use of Military Force.
specifically affirms that the President has the authority to deny due process to any American it charges with “substantially supporting al Qaeda, the Taliban or any ‘associated forces’” — whatever that means. Would “substantial support” of an “associated force,” mean linking a web-site to a web-site that links to a web-site affiliated with al-Qaeda? We don’t know.“Substantial support” of an “associated force” may imply citizens engaged in innocuous, First Amendment activities. Direct support of such hostilities in aid of enemy forces may be interpreted to include what amounts to free speech opposition to U.S. government policies, acts of civil disobedience, or anything the government deems "terrorism."
Most often missed in the discussion, of course, is that all accusations of who is "Al Qaeda" rest solely on the word of the government, with no witnesses, evidence, or any other form of due process available when the government is either wrong, or lying.
Section 1021 also reads: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law." But "existing law," in the words of Sen. Lindsey Graham a key mover of the bill, refers to Padilla v. Rumsfeld in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the government's claim of authority to hold Americans arrested on American soil indefinitely.
Finally Section 1022 "(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS" states:
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.However, although the section says it is not “required” that US citizens be held in military detention, it is nevertheless “allowed.” This is a key spin of the disinformation on NDAA. You clearly see the words "does not extend to citizens of the United States." You can see that, Buford, can't you see that? What you don't clearly see is the word "requires," which is not to say "does not allow." It's the fine print. To put it bluntly, it's a g^ddd lawyer's trick.
Never think this does not apply to you. It does. If you want to do something about it go here:
"Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention. Merry Christmas, US Senate,"
here, "Oath Keepers Launches National Effort to Recall and/or Remove Members of Congress Who Voted for NDAA Military Detention. Merry Christmas, U.S. Congress!"
or here, "Facebook: "Recall Every Congressman Who Voted for the NDAA."
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Why Pro-NDAA Lawmakers for Military Detention of U.S. Citizens Are Guilty of Treason.
In the outcry over the codification of the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court's decision to uphold the president's power to hold American citizens in military detention indefinitely, without charge or trial, it is common to hear the word "treason." Since constitutionally sworn officers are sworn to "protect and defend" the "United States Constitution" from "all enemies, both foreign and domestic," it would seem follow that betrayal of that oath, i.e. overturning a central part of that Constitution, the Bill of Rights, would constitute treason against the Constitution.
The legal definition of "treason" is "[betrayal], treachery, or breach of allegiance." The American oath is a statement of allegiance which makes no mention of any foreign powers, defense of territory, or defense of institutions. It is a statement of allegiance to the Constitution and the Constitution alone. The Oath of Office of the U.S. senator and congressman, required by the Constitution before assuming duties, as well as any American military officer, is:
The question then becomes can those who seek to overthrow a central part of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, be considered guilty of treason? The Constitution can be legitimately changed only by Constitutional Convention.
Given the clear affirmation in the founding document even more primary than the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, that the government is "instituted" to "secure these [unalienable] rights," of which right to a jury trial is one, I would argue yes.
This passage of the Declaration is so beautiful, concise, and comprehensive that it always bears reproduction in full:
Thomas Jefferson said of the jury trial:
You don't need to be a meteorologist to know if it's raining outside, and you don't need to be a constitutional scholar to know that permanent wartime powers amounts to the overthrow of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. Treason.
Common sense alone says you might have unlimited powers in a war of limited duration, or you might have limited powers in a war of unlimited duration, but the plain language of the Constitution tells us you cannot have both: unlimited powers in a war of unlimited duration.
This is the question which has been ignored since 9/11, and which the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court left for the Supreme Court review that never came. The war on terror is the first war which by definition has no end, in which the "enemy" is an amorphous network rather than the kind of military hierarchy we have opposed in every previous war. This is the first war in which there is no one from whom to accept surrender. Declaration of a war as a "task which does not end," as George Bush said to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001, is a ruse which should have resulted in charges of treason the moment it was uttered. The import of unlimited wartime powers in a war of unlimited duration has not changed. It constitutes Treason.
[MODEL RECALL LAW, WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I.]
The Treasonous 383
SENATE: YEAs ---86
HOUSE: AYES 283 --
RELATED POST: "Why a Constitutional Law Professor Should Not Sign an Unconstitutional Military Detention Bill"
The legal definition of "treason" is "[betrayal], treachery, or breach of allegiance." The American oath is a statement of allegiance which makes no mention of any foreign powers, defense of territory, or defense of institutions. It is a statement of allegiance to the Constitution and the Constitution alone. The Oath of Office of the U.S. senator and congressman, required by the Constitution before assuming duties, as well as any American military officer, is:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."However, there are some who object to the words "traitor" and "treason" when applied to the senators and congressmen who voted for the NDAA, citing Article 3 of the Constitution:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."The Oath required to be sworn by by the Constitution makes provision for defending the Constitution (and nothing else) against "enemies both foreign and domestic." So there is nothing limiting those enemies who "levy war" to foreign powers, as the "enemy combatant" doctrine acknowledges. This doctrine states that enemies of the United States can be either U.S. citizen or non-citizen.
The question then becomes can those who seek to overthrow a central part of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, be considered guilty of treason? The Constitution can be legitimately changed only by Constitutional Convention.
Given the clear affirmation in the founding document even more primary than the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, that the government is "instituted" to "secure these [unalienable] rights," of which right to a jury trial is one, I would argue yes.
This passage of the Declaration is so beautiful, concise, and comprehensive that it always bears reproduction in full:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it... -- Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776."The Supreme Court declared in 1897:
The Constitution is the body and letter of which the Declaration of Independence is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution itself connects itself to the Declaration of Independence by dating itself from the date of the Declaration of Independence, thereby showing clearly that it is the second great document in the government of these United States and is not to be understood without the first.In other words the securing of these rights is not a tangential function of the government. The Founders made clear that the securing of these rights are the main reason for the government's very existence.
Thomas Jefferson said of the jury trial:
"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."The adjudicated wartime powers now being codified have never been put to the test in the Supreme Court. Yasar Hamdi in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld was decioded in the U.S. Supreme Court, but carried the crucial difference that Yasar Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan, arguably behind true "enemy lines."
You don't need to be a meteorologist to know if it's raining outside, and you don't need to be a constitutional scholar to know that permanent wartime powers amounts to the overthrow of the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. Treason.
Common sense alone says you might have unlimited powers in a war of limited duration, or you might have limited powers in a war of unlimited duration, but the plain language of the Constitution tells us you cannot have both: unlimited powers in a war of unlimited duration.
This is the question which has been ignored since 9/11, and which the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court left for the Supreme Court review that never came. The war on terror is the first war which by definition has no end, in which the "enemy" is an amorphous network rather than the kind of military hierarchy we have opposed in every previous war. This is the first war in which there is no one from whom to accept surrender. Declaration of a war as a "task which does not end," as George Bush said to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001, is a ruse which should have resulted in charges of treason the moment it was uttered. The import of unlimited wartime powers in a war of unlimited duration has not changed. It constitutes Treason.
[MODEL RECALL LAW, WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I.]
The Treasonous 383
SENATE: YEAs ---86
HOUSE: AYES 283 --
RELATED POST: "Why a Constitutional Law Professor Should Not Sign an Unconstitutional Military Detention Bill"
How to Recall US Senators and Congressmen
Below is a list of the senators and congressmen who voted to sell us and our American rights down the river as if we had never been born with them. The right to recall federal officials is firmly established by the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as a power "not prohibited" by the Constitution and therefore "reserved to the states" and "to the people." As proponents of limited government, the Constitution was to be viewed as a straitjacket on the government, outlining limited powers, not a straitjacket on the people, whose rights only ended where they began to infringe on the rights of others. The Tenth Amendment states:
SENATE: YEAs ---86
HOUSE: AYES 283 --
Do not let any state legislator tell you that you cannot recall senators or congressmen. Only two state courts have decided this, Idaho and New Jersey, which do not apply to other states. In both cases the reasoning was weak and specious. The Idaho court said that the law was unconstitutional because it would constitute a new "qualification" for office in addition to age, residency and inhabitancy, the existing stated qualifications in the U.S. Constitution. This reasoning is weak and a poor crutch for other states.
In NJ Chief Justice Stuart Rabner wrote "The court finds that ... the federal Constitution does not allow states the power to recall U.S. senators." This is odd because in fact the Constitution explicitly allows, by not disallowing ("prohibiting" in the Tenth Amendment,) the states the power to recall US senators and congressmen.
The Constitutional includes provisions for the expulsion of a member from either House by a vote of other members. It would be absurd to conclude that the Founders, who reserved all rights to the people including the right to "abolish" the government, and who held that all governance was only by "consent of the governed," intended for congressmen to be more responsible to their colleagues than to the people they represent. If members of the Congress can expel members, their own constituents certainly can, given properly constructed recall laws.
"Properly constructed" should be taken to mean of gravity and import. Being a member of Congress should not be a popularity contest. But when it comes to questions of Constitutional import, these are questions which properly revert back to the people and the states. These are questions to be resolved in properly designed recall legislation.
18 states presently have recall laws: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin. In some of these states federal officials are excluded, but not in others. States without recall laws would need them passed in the state legislatures, which boils down to lobbying state representatives and senators hard.
State representative and assembly districts are small and can be run for easily by ordinary citizens with little money. They are a tiny fraction of the size of a congressional district and can be door-knocked in a few months. State senators and representatives seeing challenges coming over their stand on the federal recall issue are more likely to get on the side of the people.
Almost as importantly, active recall drives and drives to pass new recall laws over the NDAA's indefinite military detention of American citizens keeps the issue in the fore. This vital since most people still are unaware of what is taking place. This will require a long-term, voter to voter education campaign for which recall can serve as the vehicle. "Why would you want to recall old Senator So-and-So?" - your neighbors will ask. Wait until they find out.
Here is one possible model recall law to present to your state representatives, just change the name of the state it is will serve as a first draft.
[MODEL RECALL LAW, WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I.]
Here is an excellent link to state house contacts and your state representatives:
http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=17173
Be sure to study this short history of the federal recall, written by an attorney, as well as the other links here, so you can be ready to knock down your state representative's arguments that senators and congressmen cannot be recalled: "Recalling US Senators and Congressmen."
Finally don't forget to join the Facebook "Recall Every Congressman Who Voted for the NDAA" The Internet will be a powerful tool for different states to communicate with each other and share information and advice.
Power now reverts back to the states, since the federal government has egregiously violated and sought to overturn our "unalienable rights," and we must call on our state legislators, who are closest to us, to recall our federal representatives from Washington who voted for this.
A Longer View
Taking the longer view of a nationwide wave of recall drives against politicians who have broken their oath to "protect and defend the Constitution," these are vital to show that the American people will not let this stand and will fight to reclaim our birthrights as Americans in a peaceful and democratic way. What the congress and the president have done constitutes nothing less than a threat to us and our families, by declaring the authority for what amounts to kidnap, torture, and execution without trial or due process. We are taking this threat seriously.
But the government's over-reach into our sacred rights might also finally bring us, at long last, to that national re-examination so long overdue since 9/11, which started the train of federal government usurpation of basic rights in the name of "security." For although George W. Bush declared that the terrorists "hated us for our freedoms," it was never Al Qaeda which took a vote on the Senate floor to abolish the Bill of Rights, but our very own "domestic enemies" of the Constitution.
That the breath-taking power grab takes place just as a fresh awakening has occurred, taking aim at the corrupting influence of money in our political system, cannot be ignored. The monied powers which rob the taxpayers of trillions in bailouts for irresponsible business practices have been challenged by Occupy Wall Street. The connection between this challenge and the attempted usurpation of our rights is hard to know.
Recall drives against a good number of federal elected officials, based on clearly righteous grounds, might open the way to a new responsiveness in our ossified institutions, by shadowing incumbents at re-election time, encouraging resignations, or, perhaps even, prompting the lawmakers themselves to mend their ways, and become true advocates for their constituents rather than for the bags of money which prowl their halls. It is truly a shame that many of these politicians who had noble entrances into political life, as reformers and mavericks, now conclude these careers as the worst traitors to their sworn oaths that the nation has ever seen.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."The Treasonous 383
SENATE: YEAs ---86
HOUSE: AYES 283 --
Do not let any state legislator tell you that you cannot recall senators or congressmen. Only two state courts have decided this, Idaho and New Jersey, which do not apply to other states. In both cases the reasoning was weak and specious. The Idaho court said that the law was unconstitutional because it would constitute a new "qualification" for office in addition to age, residency and inhabitancy, the existing stated qualifications in the U.S. Constitution. This reasoning is weak and a poor crutch for other states.
In NJ Chief Justice Stuart Rabner wrote "The court finds that ... the federal Constitution does not allow states the power to recall U.S. senators." This is odd because in fact the Constitution explicitly allows, by not disallowing ("prohibiting" 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."The states' right to recall is even more firmly anchored in the document antecedent to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, which states:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it... -- Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776."The Supreme Court declared in 1897:
The Constitution is the body and letter of which the Declaration of Independence is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.
The Constitution itself connects itself to the Declaration of Independence by dating itself from the date of the Declaration of Independence, thereby showing clearly that it is the second great document in the government of these United States and is not to be understood without the first.
The Constitutional includes provisions for the expulsion of a member from either House by a vote of other members. It would be absurd to conclude that the Founders, who reserved all rights to the people including the right to "abolish" the government, and who held that all governance was only by "consent of the governed," intended for congressmen to be more responsible to their colleagues than to the people they represent. If members of the Congress can expel members, their own constituents certainly can, given properly constructed recall laws.
"Properly constructed" should be taken to mean of gravity and import. Being a member of Congress should not be a popularity contest. But when it comes to questions of Constitutional import, these are questions which properly revert back to the people and the states. These are questions to be resolved in properly designed recall legislation.
18 states presently have recall laws: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin. In some of these states federal officials are excluded, but not in others. States without recall laws would need them passed in the state legislatures, which boils down to lobbying state representatives and senators hard.
State representative and assembly districts are small and can be run for easily by ordinary citizens with little money. They are a tiny fraction of the size of a congressional district and can be door-knocked in a few months. State senators and representatives seeing challenges coming over their stand on the federal recall issue are more likely to get on the side of the people.
Almost as importantly, active recall drives and drives to pass new recall laws over the NDAA's indefinite military detention of American citizens keeps the issue in the fore. This vital since most people still are unaware of what is taking place. This will require a long-term, voter to voter education campaign for which recall can serve as the vehicle. "Why would you want to recall old Senator So-and-So?" - your neighbors will ask. Wait until they find out.
Here is one possible model recall law to present to your state representatives, just change the name of the state it is will serve as a first draft.
[MODEL RECALL LAW, WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I.]
Here is an excellent link to state house contacts and your state representatives:
http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=17173
Be sure to study this short history of the federal recall, written by an attorney, as well as the other links here, so you can be ready to knock down your state representative's arguments that senators and congressmen cannot be recalled: "Recalling US Senators and Congressmen."
Finally don't forget to join the Facebook "Recall Every Congressman Who Voted for the NDAA" The Internet will be a powerful tool for different states to communicate with each other and share information and advice.
Power now reverts back to the states, since the federal government has egregiously violated and sought to overturn our "unalienable rights," and we must call on our state legislators, who are closest to us, to recall our federal representatives from Washington who voted for this.
A Longer View
Taking the longer view of a nationwide wave of recall drives against politicians who have broken their oath to "protect and defend the Constitution," these are vital to show that the American people will not let this stand and will fight to reclaim our birthrights as Americans in a peaceful and democratic way. What the congress and the president have done constitutes nothing less than a threat to us and our families, by declaring the authority for what amounts to kidnap, torture, and execution without trial or due process. We are taking this threat seriously.
But the government's over-reach into our sacred rights might also finally bring us, at long last, to that national re-examination so long overdue since 9/11, which started the train of federal government usurpation of basic rights in the name of "security." For although George W. Bush declared that the terrorists "hated us for our freedoms," it was never Al Qaeda which took a vote on the Senate floor to abolish the Bill of Rights, but our very own "domestic enemies" of the Constitution.
That the breath-taking power grab takes place just as a fresh awakening has occurred, taking aim at the corrupting influence of money in our political system, cannot be ignored. The monied powers which rob the taxpayers of trillions in bailouts for irresponsible business practices have been challenged by Occupy Wall Street. The connection between this challenge and the attempted usurpation of our rights is hard to know.
Recall drives against a good number of federal elected officials, based on clearly righteous grounds, might open the way to a new responsiveness in our ossified institutions, by shadowing incumbents at re-election time, encouraging resignations, or, perhaps even, prompting the lawmakers themselves to mend their ways, and become true advocates for their constituents rather than for the bags of money which prowl their halls. It is truly a shame that many of these politicians who had noble entrances into political life, as reformers and mavericks, now conclude these careers as the worst traitors to their sworn oaths that the nation has ever seen.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
I Talked With an Algerian Last Night About NDAA
http://www.dailypaul.com/194286/i-talked-with-an-algerian-last-night-about-ndaa-he-said-expect-people-to-start-disappearing
Last night I engaged in a friendly conversation with a man from Algeria who was very upset when I told him about NDAA, the new law allowing indefinite military detention of US citizens without charge or trial. He said he had come here to get away from that sort of thing, which had happened in his country and was fresh in his mind. His description of what happened in Algeria during its equivalent of Argentina's "Dirty War" was chilling and he kept shaking his head about the new law here, visibly distressed.
Basically what he said was that the next step is a large number of people, it was 50,000 in his country he said, will disappear without a trace. The government will do it to instill fear in everyone else and to show they can do it, and get away with it, so everyone else is much easier to manage. It will not matter whether you are rich or poor, on the left or on the right, a university professor, a doctor, or if your father is a rich businessman. It simply won't matter. Your family will go to the police station to file a missing persons report but they will not be able to help you. Left or right doesn't matter, it is anyone with strong opinions who can express them who are the threat.
Everywhere you turn there will be a brick wall. No one knows anything, yes it has been happening a lot, and no one can help. It will be as if you had never existed.
I asked him if there was some kind of historic national reconciliation and prosecution of the criminals who did it. He said no one would know whom to prosecute, in the end, because even this much later no one knew who was really behind it. Of course it was the Army, but not the entire Army, just certain specialized units, perhaps segregated from the rest, led by generals whom other generals did not challenge, perhaps out of fear that they could go to. What the military excels at is compartmentalizing functions and telling groups of people only what they need to know, and keeping the rest almost as in the dark as civilians.
In every respect it sounded like some sort of ultimate gang takeover.
I'm not kidding when I say he was upset. He was squirming and shaking his head. He spoke with a thick French accent and said he was going to Google this, since of course there has been a major media blackout He said this is how it starts, the declared figleaf of legal authority to detain anyone. He acted as if he knew what comes next.
I believe our best defense is to now challenge the authority of Congress to pass such a law, and as citizens declare it invalid, and take the fight to the state houses since the federal government is now so obviously hopelessly corrupt.
Power now reverts back to the states, since the federal government has egregiously violated and sought to overturn our "unalienable rights," and we must call on our state legislators, who are closest to us, to recall our federal representatives from Washington who voted for this. The Founders have given us potent tools to establish our right to recall, which is a peaceful and incremental measure compared to the right they gave us to "abolish" a government which has become "destructive" of our "unalienable rights."
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it... -- Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776."
Jefferson indicated clearly that the Right to a Jury Trial, contained in the Sixth Amendment, was among the "unalienable rights." Jefferson said:
"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
As a first exercise in state power, the recall of the treasonous federal legislators should be exercised and implemented in states where there are already recall laws, the powers for which are established by the Tenth Amendment. Since the power of recall is not a power which is expressly "prohibited" by the Constitution, it is a power "reserved" to the states and to the people, according to the Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Some say that US senators cannot be recalled. This is not true. The law is far from settled.
That the power to recall senators and congressmen resides in the people can be inferred by the existence of the Constitutional provisions for expulsion from either house by vote. It would be absurd to conclude that the Founders intended for congressmen to be more responsible to their colleagues than to the very people they represent. If the Founders had intended for representatives to be able to serve out their terms in the face of any opposition short of criminal conviction, the expulsion clauses would not have been included.
If a congressman's term can be cut short by a super-majority vote of his or her colleagues, surely a state may exercise the same power either by direct recall by the state legislature or by a mechanism enacted by that legislature to do so. In addition, there is the clearly articulated right to "alter or abolish" the government if necessary, which indicates that the Founders would not have objected to recall laws.
The legislative history of the federal official recall supports this "reserved" power, in that there is little legislative history at all. Two state courts have ruled that their senators cannot be recalled, Idaho and New Jersey, but the opinions have been weakly worded and and argued, and anyway do not apply to other states. The issue of recall of federal officials is ripe to be revisited in this political climate.
In addition, arrest warrants should be issued for the Treasonous 383, who egregiously and knowingly violated their Oath of Office. The Oath of Office of the U.S. senator and congressman, required by the Constitution before assuming duties, as well as any American military officer, is: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…” The Oath makes no mention of defending territory, the president, or anything other than the Constitution. The Founders intended that defense of the Constitution come before all else.
Thomas Jefferson said: "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its
constitution." By violating their Oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution, these senators have made themselves "domestic enemies" of the Constitution, and can no longer be said to represent us.
18 states presently have recall laws: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin. State legislatures can pass them in states which do not.
[MODEL RECALL LAW, WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I.]
Last night I engaged in a friendly conversation with a man from Algeria who was very upset when I told him about NDAA, the new law allowing indefinite military detention of US citizens without charge or trial. He said he had come here to get away from that sort of thing, which had happened in his country and was fresh in his mind. His description of what happened in Algeria during its equivalent of Argentina's "Dirty War" was chilling and he kept shaking his head about the new law here, visibly distressed.
Basically what he said was that the next step is a large number of people, it was 50,000 in his country he said, will disappear without a trace. The government will do it to instill fear in everyone else and to show they can do it, and get away with it, so everyone else is much easier to manage. It will not matter whether you are rich or poor, on the left or on the right, a university professor, a doctor, or if your father is a rich businessman. It simply won't matter. Your family will go to the police station to file a missing persons report but they will not be able to help you. Left or right doesn't matter, it is anyone with strong opinions who can express them who are the threat.
Everywhere you turn there will be a brick wall. No one knows anything, yes it has been happening a lot, and no one can help. It will be as if you had never existed.
I asked him if there was some kind of historic national reconciliation and prosecution of the criminals who did it. He said no one would know whom to prosecute, in the end, because even this much later no one knew who was really behind it. Of course it was the Army, but not the entire Army, just certain specialized units, perhaps segregated from the rest, led by generals whom other generals did not challenge, perhaps out of fear that they could go to. What the military excels at is compartmentalizing functions and telling groups of people only what they need to know, and keeping the rest almost as in the dark as civilians.
In every respect it sounded like some sort of ultimate gang takeover.
I'm not kidding when I say he was upset. He was squirming and shaking his head. He spoke with a thick French accent and said he was going to Google this, since of course there has been a major media blackout He said this is how it starts, the declared figleaf of legal authority to detain anyone. He acted as if he knew what comes next.
I believe our best defense is to now challenge the authority of Congress to pass such a law, and as citizens declare it invalid, and take the fight to the state houses since the federal government is now so obviously hopelessly corrupt.
Power now reverts back to the states, since the federal government has egregiously violated and sought to overturn our "unalienable rights," and we must call on our state legislators, who are closest to us, to recall our federal representatives from Washington who voted for this. The Founders have given us potent tools to establish our right to recall, which is a peaceful and incremental measure compared to the right they gave us to "abolish" a government which has become "destructive" of our "unalienable rights."
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it... -- Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776."
Jefferson indicated clearly that the Right to a Jury Trial, contained in the Sixth Amendment, was among the "unalienable rights." Jefferson said:
"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
As a first exercise in state power, the recall of the treasonous federal legislators should be exercised and implemented in states where there are already recall laws, the powers for which are established by the Tenth Amendment. Since the power of recall is not a power which is expressly "prohibited" by the Constitution, it is a power "reserved" to the states and to the people, according to the Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Some say that US senators cannot be recalled. This is not true. The law is far from settled.
That the power to recall senators and congressmen resides in the people can be inferred by the existence of the Constitutional provisions for expulsion from either house by vote. It would be absurd to conclude that the Founders intended for congressmen to be more responsible to their colleagues than to the very people they represent. If the Founders had intended for representatives to be able to serve out their terms in the face of any opposition short of criminal conviction, the expulsion clauses would not have been included.
If a congressman's term can be cut short by a super-majority vote of his or her colleagues, surely a state may exercise the same power either by direct recall by the state legislature or by a mechanism enacted by that legislature to do so. In addition, there is the clearly articulated right to "alter or abolish" the government if necessary, which indicates that the Founders would not have objected to recall laws.
The legislative history of the federal official recall supports this "reserved" power, in that there is little legislative history at all. Two state courts have ruled that their senators cannot be recalled, Idaho and New Jersey, but the opinions have been weakly worded and and argued, and anyway do not apply to other states. The issue of recall of federal officials is ripe to be revisited in this political climate.
In addition, arrest warrants should be issued for the Treasonous 383, who egregiously and knowingly violated their Oath of Office. The Oath of Office of the U.S. senator and congressman, required by the Constitution before assuming duties, as well as any American military officer, is: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…” The Oath makes no mention of defending territory, the president, or anything other than the Constitution. The Founders intended that defense of the Constitution come before all else.
Thomas Jefferson said: "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its
constitution." By violating their Oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution, these senators have made themselves "domestic enemies" of the Constitution, and can no longer be said to represent us.
18 states presently have recall laws: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin. State legislatures can pass them in states which do not.
[MODEL RECALL LAW, WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I.]
The Treasonous 383
SENATE: YEAs ---86
SENATE: YEAs ---86
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Rubio (R-FL)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Vitter (R-LA)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
Moran (R-KS)
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Rubio (R-FL)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Vitter (R-LA)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
Moran (R-KS)
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Buerkle
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chandler
Cicilline
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Hoyer
Hultgren
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Sánchez, Linda T.
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Visclosky
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Buerkle
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chandler
Cicilline
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Hoyer
Hultgren
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Sánchez, Linda T.
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Visclosky
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
Abstain:
Bachmann
Coble
Diaz-Balart
Filner
Giffords
Gutierrez
Johnson, E. B.
LaTourette
Lynch
Myrick
Paul
Pitts
Sanchez, Loretta
Young (FL)
Bachmann
Coble
Diaz-Balart
Filner
Giffords
Gutierrez
Johnson, E. B.
LaTourette
Lynch
Myrick
Paul
Pitts
Sanchez, Loretta
Young (FL)
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Why Is the Media Lying About New NDAA Power for Indefinite Military Detention of Americans?
http://www.truth-out.org/why-media-lying-about-new-ndaa-power-indefinite-military-detention-americans/1324397022
At some point a sideshow to a story becomes so painfully obvious that it becomes the story, and this now should be: Why is the media taking such pains to knowingly and falsely claim that the new power of the military to detain and imprison people without charge or trial, for life, does not include US citizens? We know what happened. The Bill of Rights has been overturned. And enough has been written on the deceptive language first warned of by Congressman Justin Amash, when he told The Grand Rapids Press that the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was "carefully crafted to mislead the public," for newspaper editors to know better.
The AP reported this Wednesday when the House passed the final House-Senate Conference Committee version of the NDAA:
Specifically, the bill would require that the military take custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates and who is involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. There is an exemption for U.S. citizens.
As has been pointed out repeatedly by civil libertarians, the cunning language is technically correct, because "require" is different than "allow," but although the bill does not "require" the executive branch to place American citizens in military detention without charge or trial for life, it does indeed "allow" it.
Although Sections 1031 and 1032 were renumbered 1021 and 1022 in the Conference Committee (makes it harder to Google) the substance is still intact. The US military can bust down your door at any time, given the proper go ahead by the executive branch, take you away, never charge you with a crime, never give you a trial, and lock you up, torture you, or even kill you. There is a bit of new razzle-dazzle in the new Section 1021 language now stating:
"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 problem is that "existing law," as the traitor occupying the senate seat for the Great State of South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, reiterated, is the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court ruling in Padilla v. Rumsfeld, which temporarily upheld Bush's authority to hold American citizen Jose Padilla without charge or trial, as an "enemy combatant," even though he was arrested on US soil with the full rights of an American-born citizen. Judge Michael Luttig in that decision fully expected the question to go before the Supreme Court, before Bush pulled a fast one and said suddenly that Padilla could have a civilian trial after being held in isolation and tortured for 3 1/2 years. That made Luttig go ballistic. Now he was the last guy to have overturned the Bill of Rights.
In a Washington Post report "Judge Luttig Slams Bush Administration in Padilla Case" the Post (reposted in the Legal Reader) said:
The appeals court opinion reflected a tone of anger that is rare for a federal court addressing the United States government, particularly in a matter of presidential authority.
Luttig said the government's actions created the appearance "that the government may be attempting to avoid" Supreme Court review in a matter of "especial national importance."
So bottom line, yes, this still means you.
Stephen Lendman at OpEdNews.com points out a number of other articles that are part of the media disinformation campaign, in "Obama Approves Draconian Police State Law." A Washington Post editorial said that the final bill passed:
"no longer contain[s] some of the most odious measures contained in earlier drafts. Those would have required military detention for both foreign nationals and U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism activities....The new approach is designed to limit military detention to foreign al-Qaeda operatives..."
Again, the new bill doesn't require the military detention of Americans, but absolutely allows it. The most "odious measures" are still in.
The Post also invoked the disingenuous "require" versus "allow" spin when it reported after the House approved of the Conference Committee compromise bill:
The White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the measure, arguing that it would have required the military, rather than civilian law enforcement, to detain terrorism suspects apprehended on American soil.
But Obama's problem wasn't military involvement in American arrests. It was that the law would have required it for "suspects" he had deemed "associated" with terrorism, rather than leaving it to the president's discretion.
What is becoming more worrisome than what Anonymous calls this "outright declaration of WAR against the American People," is the fact that the Congress, the president, and their media minions are working so hard to conceal it. If you need to overthrow the Constitution in order to fight terrorists, why not just say so? Why the guilty, criminal frame of mind? Why the contortions of language which make it seem that the bill does everything but what it actually does?
In a NY Times Op-Ed two retired four-star marine generals (Charles Krulak and Joseph Hoar) write:
One provision 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.
And this is only the print media. The broadcast media is still acting as if the sudden transition to martial law never happened (when the military can arrest anyone in the middle of the night on Executive Branch orders, it is martial law.)
The kicker is the military doesn't even want this new job. They are built for fighting and winning wars abroad. Krulak and Hoar write:
It would force on the military responsibilities it hasn't sought. This would violate not only the spirit of the post-Reconstruction act limiting the use of the armed forces for domestic law enforcement but also our trust with service members, who enlist believing that they will never be asked to turn their weapons on fellow Americans.
Thomas Jefferson said:
"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
By violating their Oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution, these senators have made themselves "domestic enemies" of the Constitution. This is Day One of the Overthrow, which we shall fight, and Day One of the Media Silence. As Anonymous says, war has been declared on the American people. It is appropriate to always end with the list of those who betrayed us December 15, Bill of Rights Day, a day of infamy. These are the names, and their names are Treason. And this includes Obama who signed it.
The Treasonous 383
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)