Recall Package for State Legislators to Enact a Recall Law for U.S. Senators and Congressmen in Your State.

 COPY AND PASTE INTO A WORD DOCUMENT AND TAILOR TO YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES AND STATE SENATORS.

CONTACT YOUR STATE LEGISLATORS HERE
http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=17173

COVER LETTER

[Brackets where information to be tailored]

Dear Representative/Assemblyman [NAME]

You of course are familiar with the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA), the controversial law which allows (not requires) the indefinite military detention of U.S. citizens without charge or trial for the "duration of hostilities" in the "war on terror."  The law was passed by Congress on December 15, Bill of Rights Day, and signed by the president on New Years' Eve.  There is no question that the law, and any idea that the U.S. government can do this to its citizens, is clearly unconstitutional, illegal, and in violation of the Oath of Office of every U.S. Senator and Congressman who voted to pass the bill.

We believe it is time for [STATE NAME] to have a recall law modeled along the lines of the carefully worded, stringent recall law passed by Washington State.  This law allows for the recall of federal officials on two grounds: 1) acts of malfeasance or misfeasance while in office, or 2) violation of the oath of office.  There is no doubt that [Senators John Kerry and Scott Brown] have violated their oaths of office, to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."   The Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land" according to the Supremacy Clause, Article VI.

The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that in "all" criminal prosecutions:

    "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

In contrast, Section 1021 (b) through (c) of the NDAA in substance states that:

""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..."

In cases of treason, in which American citizens have taken up arms against the United States, Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution mandates that:

       "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."

Therefore, in cases of treason,  American citizens are guaranteed not only their Sixth Amendment rights under the Constitution, which are "inalienable" according to the document from which the Constitution emanates, the Declaration of Independence, but also their Article III requirement that two witnesses testify against him, or that he confess in open court.  The Declaration of Independence declare that:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights;"

The U.S. Supreme Court held in 1897 that:

       "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."

As for the importance of the right to a jury trial, 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."


Therefore, in cases of treason, U.S. citizens are guaranteed, by the Supreme Law of the Land, due process rights under two distinct sections of the Constitution, the Sixth Amendment, and Article III.

The NDAA is unconstitutional for the additional reason that the broad sweep of the language used in Section 1021, “substantial support” of an “associated force,” may imply citizens engaged in innocuous, First Amendment activities, such as free speech opposition to U.S. government policies, aid to civilians, or acts of civil disobedience.

U.S. Representative Tom McClintock said on the House floor during debate that Section 1021:

    "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."

It is important to remember that the passage of the NDAA has been accompanied by a sophisticated and well-oiled misinformation campaign intended to decieve American into believing that the indefinite military detention provisions do not apply to U.S. citizens.  U.S. Representative Justin Amash warned that the NDAA as passed was“carefully crafted to mislead the public.”  For example, Section 1021 (e) states:

"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."

 But "existing law" is in flux, and in its present state is embodied in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in  the case of Jose Padilla, the U.S.-born citizen whom Fourth Circuit affirmed could be held indefinitely by the military under the Bush administration without charge or trial.  The Fourth Circuit's controversial decision was destined for Supreme Court review until the Bush administration released Padilla to civilian trial after nearly 4 years of military detention, after which he was unable to assist in his own defense.  Some speculate that the change of course in Padilla was made specifically to avoid Supreme Courth review of the Fourth Circuit decision, the first involving the status and rights of "enemy combatants" in the first proclaimed war without end.

The second section of deceptive language is in Section 1022 (b) of the NDAA states:

"APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS:  (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

However, even if US citizens are not "required" to be detained by the military in terrorism cases,  it is still "allowed." 

The ACLU has said: “President Obama’s action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law…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…” (“President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law,” Press Release, ACLU, 12/31/2010 at http://tinyurl.com/7oebus6   )

By violation of their Oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," Senators Kerry and Brown have become eligible for recall. 

We the People of Massachusetts demand that our U.S. senators and congressmen obey their sacred Oath of Office, to be performed before all other official acts of of.  These are not just words. 

[State representatives if the Commonwealth of Massachusetts] also take an oath to "support the United States Constitution."  Senators [Kerry's and Brown's] actions demand recall by the people.    Without delay, please sponsor and work to enact The Massachusetts Public Official Accountability Act of 2012 (MPOAA,) draft language below, modeled upon the federal recall law for the state of Washington, in order that the People may exercise our powers reserved to us under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which "reserves" all powers not specifically enumerated as the preserve of the federal government "to the states...and to the people":

"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." - Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

A comprehensive analysis of NDAA language from the final bill can be found at http://tinyurl.com/6o46y4n    (“Continuing Protests Against NDAA Indefinite Military Detention of U.S. Citizens, Recall Efforts On” at DailyKos.com )  Please find enclosed a Fact Sheet on NDAA and draft language of the model law based on Washington State's.

Thank you and best regards.

Signed Your Constituents:

Non-constituent supporters of MPOAA:

---------

Washington State Recall Law, Constitution of the State of Washington Article I, Sections 33 and 34:

Recall of Elective Officers.

Every elective public officer of the [state of Washington] except judges of courts of record is subject to recall and discharge by the legal voters of the state, or of the political subdivision of the state, from which he was elected whenever a petition demanding his recall, reciting that such officer has committed some act or acts of malfeasance or misfeasance while in office, or who has violated his oath of office, stating the matters complained of, signed by the percentages of the qualified electors thereof, hereinafter provided, the percentage required to be computed from the total number of votes cast for all candidates for his said office to which he was elected at the preceding election, is filed with the officer with whom a petition for nomination, or certificate for nomination, to such office must be filed under the laws of this state, and the same officer shall call a special election as provided by the general election laws of this state, and the result determined as therein provided.

The legislature shall pass the necessary laws to carry out the provisions of section thirty-three (33) of this article, and to facilitate its operation and effect without delay: Provided, That the authority hereby conferred upon the legislature shall not be construed to grant to the legislature any exclusive power of lawmaking nor in any way limit the initiative and referendum powers reserved by the people. The percentages required shall be, state officers, other than judges, senators and representatives, city officers of cities of the first class, school district boards in cities of the first class; county officers of counties of the first, second and third classes, twenty-five per cent. Officers of all other political subdivisions, cities, towns, townships, precincts and school districts not herein mentioned, and state senators and representatives, thirty-five per cent.


Washington State law linked at  http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Article_I,_Washington_State_Constitution#Section_33


-------

Fact Sheet: New Law Allowing for Indefinite Military Detention of U.S. Citizens Without Charge or Trial, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA)

Last revision: 1/10/2011

- The National Defense Authorization Act of 2001 (NDAA) passed by the House and the Senate on Dec. 15, 2011, Bill of Rights Day, and signed by Obama in the late hours of New Year’s Eve, allows for American citizens to be taken into military custody without charge or trial, for the “duration of hostilities” in the “War on Terror” for the first time in American history.

- The roll call votes for the House and Senate can be seen at links: Senate (86 “yes” - 13 “no”) at  http://tinyurl.com/6noog9u  and House (283 “yes” - 136 “no”) at  http://tinyurl.com/6nz4b8u

- Forbes Magazine: “The NDAA authorizes the military to detain even US citizens under the broad new anti-terrorism provisions provided in the bill, once again without trial.” (“President Obama Signed the National Defense Authorization Act - Now What?” by E.D. Kain, Forbes, 1/2/2011)

- ACLU: “President Obama’s action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law…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…” (“President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law,” Press Release, ACLU, 12/31/2010 at http://tinyurl.com/7oebus6   )

- There is a major campaign underway to deceive Americans into thinking NDAA does not apply to U.S. citizens.  Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) said the legislation was “carefully crafted to mislead the public.” (“U.S. Rep. Justin Amash opposes defense authorization bill,” The Grand Rapids Press, 11/28/2010)

-  In a Jan. 5, 2011 BBC report, Professor Jonathan Turley of the Georgetown University School of Law called Obama’s signing statement to not use NDAA powers against U.S. citizens a “hollow promise” which nevertheless gives the president and future presidents “authoritarian powers” to lock up U.S. citizens without trial and even kill them.  Youtube of interview at: http://tinyurl.com/7ssg53d

- Precise analysis of bill language at http://tinyurl.com/6o46y4n    (“Continuing Protests Against NDAA Indefinite Military Detention of U.S. Citizens, Recall Efforts On” at DailyKos.com )

- The Washington Post has confirmed a secret list of Americans to be assassinated, reporting on Jan. 26, 2010: "The military's Joint Special Operations Command maintains a target list that includes several Americans...U.S. officials have said that the government is prepared to kill U.S. citizens who are believed to be involved in terrorist activities..." There is no way to determine who is on the list, as it is "classified." ("U.S. military teams, intelligence deeply involved in aiding Yemen on strikes," Washington Post, by Dana Priest, Jan. 27, 2010)

- The only U.S. senators who voted against the NDAA are: Cardin (D-MD), Coburn (R-OK), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), Durbin (D-IL), Franken (D-MN), Harkin (D-IA), Lee (R-UT), Merkley (D-OR), Paul (R-KY), Risch (R-ID), Sanders (I-VT), Wyden (D-OR)

- The Oath of Office for U.S. senators and congressmen, required by the Constitution before assuming duties, and American military officers 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…”  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."

- Citizens have launched recall campaigns against senators and congressmen who voted for the NDAA.  The states which presently have such recall laws are Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin.  States which do not can pass them.  For more information go to RecallTheTraitors.blogspot.com,  and http://tinyurl.com/7mpmdbx

Opposition to the NDAA and the restoration of Americans’ basic rights are not a partisan issue.  Citizens from the left to the right of the spectrum have come together in outrage.  For more information go to RecallTheTraitors.blogspot.com  Please join the Facebook linked at this site.

NDAA Fact Sheet linked at http://recallthetraitors.blogspot.com/2012/01/ndaa-fact-sheet-for-distribution-at.html

NDAA Fact Sheet for Distribution at Protests, Printable PDF.

Informative links for educating the public on the National Defense Authorization Following is a one-page fact sheet ready for printing, in PDF or MSWord form.  Includes information on mounting recall campaigns.

NDAA Fact Sheet PDF 

MSWord Format

Here is a Youtube of a BBC report, a major media source:

MP3 sound file of BBC interview HERE.

Fact Sheet Text

Fact Sheet: New Law Allowing for Indefinite Military Detention of U.S. Citizens Without Charge or Trial, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA)

Last revision: 1/10/2011

- The National Defense Authorization Act of 2001 (NDAA) passed by the House and the Senate on Dec. 15, 2011, Bill of Rights Day, and signed by Obama in the late hours of New Year’s Eve, allows for American citizens to be taken into military custody without charge or trial, for the “duration of hostilities” in the “War on Terror” for the first time in American history.

- The roll call votes for the House and Senate can be seen at links: Senate (86 “yes” - 13 “no”) at  http://tinyurl.com/6noog9u  and House (283 “yes” - 136 “no”) at  http://tinyurl.com/6nz4b8u

- Forbes Magazine: “The NDAA authorizes the military to detain even US citizens under the broad new anti-terrorism provisions provided in the bill, once again without trial.” (“President Obama Signed the National Defense Authorization Act - Now What?” by E.D. Kain, Forbes, 1/2/2011)

- ACLU: “President Obama’s action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law…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…” (“President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law,” Press Release, ACLU, 12/31/2010 at http://tinyurl.com/7oebus6   )

- There is a major campaign underway to deceive Americans into thinking NDAA does not apply to U.S. citizens.  Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) said the legislation was “carefully crafted to mislead the public.” (“U.S. Rep. Justin Amash opposes defense authorization bill,” The Grand Rapids Press, 11/28/2010)

-  In a Jan. 5, 2011 BBC report, Professor Jonathan Turley of the Georgetown University School of Law called Obama’s signing statement to not use NDAA powers against U.S. citizens a “hollow promise” which nevertheless gives the president and future presidents “authoritarian powers” to lock up U.S. citizens without trial and even kill them.  Youtube of interview at: http://tinyurl.com/7ssg53d

- Precise analysis of bill language at http://tinyurl.com/6o46y4n    (“Continuing Protests Against NDAA Indefinite Military Detention of U.S. Citizens, Recall Efforts On” at DailyKos.com )

- The Washington Post has confirmed a secret list of Americans to be assassinated, reporting on Jan. 26, 2010: "The military's Joint Special Operations Command maintains a target list that includes several Americans...U.S. officials have said that the government is prepared to kill U.S. citizens who are believed to be involved in terrorist activities..." There is no way to determine who is on the list, as it is "classified." ("U.S. military teams, intelligence deeply involved in aiding Yemen on strikes," Washington Post, by Dana Priest, Jan. 27, 2010)

- The only U.S. senators who voted against the NDAA are: Cardin (D-MD), Coburn (R-OK), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), Durbin (D-IL), Franken (D-MN), Harkin (D-IA), Lee (R-UT), Merkley (D-OR), Paul (R-KY), Risch (R-ID), Sanders (I-VT), Wyden (D-OR)

- The Oath of Office for U.S. senators and congressmen, required by the Constitution before assuming duties, and American military officers 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…”  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."

- Citizens have launched recall campaigns against senators and congressmen who voted for the NDAA.  The states which presently have such recall laws are Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin.  States which do not can pass them.  For more information go to RecallTheTraitors.blogspot.com,  and http://tinyurl.com/7mpmdbx

Opposition to the NDAA and the restoration of Americans’ basic rights are not a partisan issue.  Citizens from the left to the right of the spectrum have come together in outrage.  For more information go to RecallTheTraitors.blogspot.com  Please join the Facebook linked at this site.

 Pertinent Language of NDAA Law and Rebuttals to Misleading Portions (full text, final bill HR1540):

Section 1021

(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forcesthat are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

COMMENT:
“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 construed as free speech opposition to U.S. government
policies, aid to civilians, or acts of civil disobedience.
Rep. Tom McClintock opposed the bill on the House floor saying it:

"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."

(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111– 84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
COMMENT:
"Existing law" is Fourth Circuit in Jose Padilla.

Final Roll Call Vote, "YES" is in favor of NDAA military detention of U.S. citizens
SENATE: "YES" ---86
HOUSE: "YES' 283 --

For States With No Federal Recall Law

Contact Your State Representatives to pass recall laws HERE. 

When Does "Support and Defend" the Constitution Become Enforceable?

At what point does "support and defend" become enforceable law? The Oath of Office of congressmen, military officers, and the president, required by Article 6 of the Constitution and, in the case of military officers, by an Act of Congress 13 May 1884, says in substance:

 "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;...So help me God."

Notably absent is any mention of enemies of our territorial integrity, or support or defense of elected office holders, including the president.  By conspicuous absence it was made clear where primary loyalty must lie.  The intriguing possibility is that the Founders didn't really care what the territory consisted of, or who was nominally in charge of it.  America was to be a system of laws where citizens held, according to the Declaration of Independence which preceded the Constitution, certain "inalienable rights," i.e. rights seen as given by God which man could not take away:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable 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 abolish it...”

That the right to a jury trial (and not just habaes corpus), recently eliminated by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011, was seen by the Founders as one of the "inalienable rights" was expressed by Thomas Jefferson:

"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."

Remarkably, the Framers affirmed that the "securing" of these rights is not only just one reason for having a government, but the reason for its very existence:

"...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 abolish it...”

That the Declaration of Independence is as important a founding document as the Constitution, perhaps more so, was expressed when 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.

Therefore the question.  Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution declares:

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.

But unless we hold the oath the Founders required to be meaningless, an exercise in padding with extra words that the remarkably concise and pithy Framers were not known for, then "war" included the intrigues of "domestic enemies" against the primary object of nationhood which all office holders are required to defend, which is the US Constitution.  The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 constitutes a clear attack upon it, in its blatant abridgement of the Sixth Amendment Right to a Jury Trial:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Now that we know NDAA clearly includes American citizens (addendum below because knowledge is power,) the question is, if the Oath to support and defend the Constitution has no meaning in practice, and is never to be enforced, should it, in the interest of avoiding rank hypocrisy and contradiction before the eyes of the world, be simply eliminated?  Should the oath-taker be spared the embarrassment and affront to honor of repeating words which have no meaning, each time an office holder or military officer raises his or her hand from this point forward?
The Treasonous 383 Who Voted for NDAA Indefinite Military Detention of U.S. Citizens Without Charge or Trial:
SENATE: YEAs ---86
HOUSE: AYES 283 --
-----------
Addendum, NDAA Primer (note, true clarifying language would say simply: "Nothing in this bill shall be construed to abridge the Sixth Amendment rights of U.S. citizens, under any circumstances.")

Section 1021 (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forcesthat are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

COMMENT:
“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 construed as free speech opposition to U.S. government
policies, aid to civilians, or acts of civil disobedience.
Rep. Tom McClintock opposed the bill on the House floor saying it:

"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."

(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111– 84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

COMMENT:
"Existing law" is Fourth Circuit in Jose Padilla.

    Section 1022 "(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS":         (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

COMMENT:
 Even if US citizens are not "required" to be detained by the military in terrorism cases,  it is still "allowed."

Related:
 "Facebook: "Recall Every Congressman Who Voted for the NDAA."
Arrests at White House Over NDAA Military Detention of Americans, Occupy Wall Street Joins Fight.
"For States With No Federal Recall Law"

For States With No Federal Recall Law

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. 

For states starting from scratch, here is the recall law for Washington State, a recommended model law for states that don't have one. This applies to federal officials. Hand it to your state representative or assemblyman, tell him to change the name "state of Washington" to your state, and to get some co-sponsors and file it as emergency legislation. Now everyone has something to get behind and you pester them all until they pass it. Then you work on your first recalls. They have to know there is slow but sure motion and a tidal wave will soon knock them off their feet.

[MODEL RECALL LAW, WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I, SECTION 33 AND 34.]

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:

"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-
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.

Rep. Tom McClintock opposed the bill on the House floor saying it:

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."

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:

"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:  

"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.