More and more people are waking up to the fact that this month the U.S. Congress deliberately and rather deviously sold the Bill of Rights down the river. -- On Tuesday International Business Times reported that GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul has warned that the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2012 "is a giant step . . . literally legalizing martial law."[1] -- He called attention to section 1031 [renumbered 1021 in conference] of NDAA 2012, which describes the U.S. as a "battlefield" and would give the military a green light to arrest and detain American citizens without any charges or trial. -- Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) said that it repeals the Posse Comitatus, and Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) said it "denigrates the very foundations of this country." -- (IBT is running a poll on the bill; the last we looked, sentiment was running 16-to-1 against it.) -- Ralph Lopez, in piece proclaiming that "The Bill of Rights has been overturned," said that Justin Amash (R-MI 3rd) said that NDAA 2012 was "carefully crafted to mislead the public," and concluded an angry piece by declaring that "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."[2] -- Washington Examiner columnist Gene Healy substantially agreed in a piece entitled "If America Is the Battleground, Nobody Has Any Rights."[3] -- Some Anonymous-affiliated hackers are so outraged that they have published "a considerable amount of detailed personal information of the majority of the 86 U.S. Senators" who voted in favor of NDAA 2012, and said that they would no longer "stand by and watch you enslave our fellow citizens," citing not only the NDAA 2012 but also the Stop Online Piracy Act, the Protect IP Act, et al.[4] -- The Orlando Sentinel reported Monday that a group symbolically "held a mock funeral for the Bill of Rights this afternoon in response to the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act" and posted a videoclip of the ceremony showing Occupy Orlando activist Kat Duerr telling those assembled: "This is a very sad time for our country. It is a time when, I am sure, our Founding Fathers, if they are looking down on us and watching what is happening, are proud of those of us right now, are proud of those of us out here honoring what they died for, what they fought for. It is our job, each and every one of us here, to remember this, and to continue to fight for it. Just because we've lost it, doesn't mean we can't still fight to get back what our rights are. So we know there's hard times ahead. Some of us here know better than others what these changes really mean. Our job is now to educate each other. Educate those who do not know. Educate those who do not know what this means. And let's keep the memory alive."[5] -- Curiously enough, one of the only publications to bother to explain the Kafkaesque legalese by which Congress subverted the U.S. Constitution was a student paper at Savanna College of Art and Design, which parsed the key sections of the Act.[2] -- COMMENT: There was a time in this fair land when every newspaper worthy of the name would have printed the relevant parts of NDAA 2012 and robust debate would have been general. -- Horace Greeley and James Madison must be spinning in their respective graves in Green-Wood Cemetery in Brooklyn, New York, and the Madison Family Cemetery in Montpelier, Virginia....
1.
NDAA 2012: RON PAUL WARNS BILL WOULD LEGALIZE MARTIAL LAW
By Dave Smith
International Business Times
December 20, 2011
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/270213/20111220/ndaa-2012-ron-paul-martial-law.htm
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has spoken out against the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Bill 2012, calling it a dangerous and alarming attempt at establishing martial law in the United States.
"This is a giant step -- this should be the biggest news going on right now -- literally legalizing martial law," Paul said on the Alex Jones radio show. He added that despite the topic's importance, the subject has never been discussed at any of the Republican presidential debates.
Paul is refferring to section 1031 of the NDAA bill, which describes the U.S. as a "battlefield" and would give the military a green light to arrest and detain American citizens without any charges or trial. Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) sums it up:
"These provisions raise serious questions as to who we are as a society and what our Constitution seeks to protect," Sen. Udall said. "Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the U.S. military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil. That alone should alarm my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but there are other problems with these provisions that must be resolved."
In other words, the military could arrest any American citizen suspected of being a domestic terrorist and throw them into a military prison indefinitely. Beyond being incredibly inhumane, this section of the bill violates a citizen's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and also ignores the Miranda process that informs criminal suspects of their rights while in police custody.
Several Congressmen and women are speaking out against the wording of section 1031. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has proposed an amendment (No. 1126), which would "limit the authority of Armed Forces to detain citizens of the United States under section 1031." Other senators took the floor at the Senate debate.
"I have gone back over the last two days again and again, reading these sections against each other -- 1031 and 1032 particularly -- and I am very concerned about how this language would be interpreted, not in the here and now, as we see the stability we have brought to our country since 9/11, but what if something were to happen and we would be under more of a sense of national emergency and this language would be interepreted for broader action," said Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.).
"If we pass the Defense authorization bill with section 1031, Congress will . . . for the first time in 60 years, authorize the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without charge or trial," said Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.). "This would be the first time Congress has deviated from President Nixon's Nondetention Act. What we are talking about is that Americans could be subjected to life imprisonment -- think about that for a moment -- life imprisonment without ever being charged, tried, or convicted of a crime, without ever having an opportunity to prove your innocence to a judge or a jury of your peers, and without the government ever having to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe that denigrates the very foundations of this country."
The NDAA Bill 2012 has been backed by the Senate and passed in the House of Representatives on Dec. 15. The bill, which also permits the Pentagon to wage cyberwars on domestic enemies of the state, is a serious violation of First Amendment human and civil rights, including freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Should the bill become a law, it could potentially hinder the movements of both Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party campaign, as well as muzzle news outlets and independent whistleblowers from exposing government corruption.
The massive $662 billion defense bill, for the most part, would finance military personnel, national security programs, weapons systems, and the wars in the Middle East. The broad-reaching bill would also impose several sanctions aimed at Iran's financial structure, and would also help accelerate the transition of national protection in Afghanistan to the Afghanistan National Security Forces.
President Obama has yet to sign the bill, and he is expected to later this week. Lobbyists of the bill, including several leaders within the House and Senate Armed Forces Committees, said they would add language and make changes to avoid a veto.
However, the Pentagon believes that "non-state actors increasingly threaten to penetrate and disrupt DOD networks and systems." To address this cyber threat, the Pentagon released a plan declaring the Internet a "domain of war," claiming how hostile groups "are working to exploit DOD unclassified and classified networks, and some foreign intelligence organizations have already acquired the capacity to disrupt elements of DOD's information infrastructure."
"The U.S. is vulnerable to sabotage in defense, power, telecommunications, banking," said Sami Saydjari, a former Pentagon cyber expert. "An attack on any one of those essential infrastructures could be as damaging as any kinetic attack on U.S. soil."
In other words, the Pentagon fears the Internet's capability to instantly spread sensitive information (see: Wikileaks), especially when the information or ideas are "not consistent with U.S. government themes and messages."
Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) said the bill would set a terrible precedent for the U.S. government.
"Our children deserve a world where they know the government will protect them, that it is not going to rule over them by invading their very thoughts," he said.
To report problems or to leave feedback about this article, e-mail:
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
To contact the editor, e-mail:
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
2.
WHY IS THE MEDIA LYING ABOUT NEW NDAA POWER FOR INDEFINITE MILITARY DETENTION OF AMERICANS?
By Ralph Lopez
Truthout
December 17, 2011
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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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."
A Stanford Law School website notes: "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.
3.
IF AMERICA IS THE BATTLEGROUND, NOBODY HAS ANY RIGHTS
By Gene Healy
Washington Examiner
December 19, 2011
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/12/if-america-battleground-nobody-has-any-rights/2017601
Last Thursday -- which happened to be the 220th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights -- the Senate passed a defense bill that demonstrates just how cavalier Congress can be with our fundamental liberties.
Given the opportunity to clarify existing law and confirm that American citizens are not subject to indefinite military detention at the order of the president -- Congress punted.
After a debate in which key members seriously contemplated empowering the president to "Gitmo-ize" Americans suspected of terrorist activity, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 leaves the question open. Maybe he can, maybe he can't, so let's let the courts sort it out.
The legislation is ready for President Obama's signature, the president having caved on his earlier veto threat. Happy Bill of Rights Day!
It could have been even worse. An earlier version of the bill would, according to one of its cosponsors, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., have allowed the president to use the U.S. military to seize American citizens on the home front and ship them to Guantanamo.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., cheered the provision, because it would "basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield." He added that "I believe our military should be deeply involved in fighting these guys at home."
James Madison, the father of the Bill of Rights, was somewhat less giddy about the prospect of militarizing the home front. "A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty," he warned at the Constitutional Convention, "the means of defense against foreign danger have always been the instruments of tyranny at home."
Yet for all the Tea Party-inspired Constitution-waving on the Hill, only a minority of Republicans seem to share the Founders' justified fear of standing armies at home.
An amendment that would have explicitly excluded U.S. citizens from the bill's military detention provisions failed by a 45-55 vote in the Senate, with only a handful of Tea Party Republicans -- including Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., -- breaking with their party to oppose selective martial law within the United States.
The language that passed Thursday ducks the issue, stating that the bill isn't intended to change existing law on U.S. citizens arrested in the U.S. But the compromise Congress settled on settles nothing. Existing law is unclear, and the NDAA makes it murkier still.
In 2002 during the Bush administration, federal officials seized Brooklyn-born al Qaeda suspect Jose Padilla, declared him an "enemy combatant," and ordered him held in a military brig without charges.
The Bush Justice Department argued that Congress had authorized military detention of citizens at home when it authorized war against al Qaeda. But fearing a Supreme Court rebuke, the administration transferred Padilla to federal prison in early 2006, so that question has never been resolved by the Court.
But Congress can clarify the issue itself. Paul has joined 12 of his colleagues in backing the "Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011," which insists that congressional authorization for a war "shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen . . . apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention."
A decade into the War on Terror, al Qaeda is a radically diminished force. At home, it's apparently been reduced to a few hapless radicals, too dumb to realize they're being played by FBI informants.
If Congress thinks its necessary to turn America into a battlefield to address that sort of threat, the least they can do is to say so.
--Examiner Columnist Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and the author of The Cult of the Presidency.
4.
ANONYMOUS AIMS TO MAKE U.S. SENATORS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR VOTES
By Zeljka Zorz
Help Net Security
December 20, 2011
http://www.net-security.org/secworld.php?id=12125
A group of Anonymous-affiliated hackers has made public a considerable amount of detailed personal information of the majority of the 86 U.S. Senators that voted for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
The Pastebin entry includes information such as dates of birth, spouse and children names, addresses, phone numbers, Twitter accounts, memberships in various committees, information about education, profession and religion, their staff, previous votes on a number of issues, their campaign contributors, suites filed against them, and more.
The hackers don't claim to have stolen the information following a breach, and the document seems to have been compiled from information collected from a variety of sources accessible to the public.
According to Softpedia, some U.S. citizens have already seized on the information offered and have been sending accusations of treason to a number of the Senators who voted Yea.
A day later, the goal of the document was explained.
"This is an open letter to the U.S. leaders," wrote the hackers. "We've been watching you systematically destroy the rights of your own people, one law at a time. No longer shall we stand by and watch you enslave our fellow citizens. You have continued down this path of treason by creating acts such as the National Defense Authorization Act, Stop Online Piracy Act, Protect IP Act, and more. You've tried to conceal the true purpose of these bills, and pass them without the consent of the American people."
They went on enumerating the Bill of Rights, and said that every time they violate any of the amendments included in it, they will make sure that the people are aware of it. "You may have previously succeeded in concealing your actions, but that time has come to an end," they concluded.
5.
OCCUPY ORLANDO HOLDS MOCK FUNERAL TO LAY BILL OF RIGHTS TO REST
By Jon Busdeker
Orlando (Florida) Sentinel
December 19, 2011
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/os-occupy-orlando-funeral-20111220,0,2757251.story
Occupy Orlando demonstrators held a mock funeral for the Bill of Rights this afternoon in response to the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act. The bill allows terrorism suspects to be picked up in the United States and abroad, then held in indefinite detention without a trial. About 25 mourners walked silently from City Hall to the Orange County Courthouse, the site of the funeral . Dressed mostly in black, several demonstrators eulogized the oversized, framed copy of the Bill of Rights.
6.
Editorials
SMALL IMPROVEMENTS TO NDAA COULD THREATEN YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
District
December 20, 2011
http://www.scaddistrict.com/?p=26096
Would it really be possible to burn and circumvent basic constitutional rights without much of the American public even noticing? The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) could be poised to do just that by allowing the U.S. federal government to treat its citizens as enemy combatants. But only if the government claims that those citizens are a threat to national security, so don’t worry, really.
The NDAA is legislation that has been passed by the federal government for each of the past 48 fiscal years. The act establishes the budget, logistics, and organization of the Department of Defense for that given year. It’s nothing less than remarkable, in the most disturbing way possible, then, that a tedious, business-as-usual act could be home for loopholes in such a fundamental American right as habeas corpus.
H.R. 1540: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, as passed by the House on Dec. 15, still contains the provisions that have garnered criticism, outrage, and panic from citizens and groups like Oath Keepers, Infowars, and Anonymous. While it is much less threatening than previous versions, the criticism falls largely on Subtitle D -- Detainee Matters, especially in sections 1031 and 1032.
Section 1031 subsection A reaffirms the president’s authority to use “all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force,” which includes the power “to detain covered persons . . . pending disposition under the law of war.” Subsection B gives the definition of “covered persons” as any person (which of course would include U.S. citizens by the wording) that aided in 9/11 or supported “al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”
What “disposition under law of war” means is that someone accused of affiliation with a terrorist group can face “detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities,” or a military trial, where citizens aren’t guaranteed rights such as trial by a jury of peers.
The only difference between being treated as a citizen and an enemy combatant becomes the accusation by the executive branch that you aided or abetted terrorists.
Here’s where things get confusing. Section 1031 subsection E was added, which states, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens . . . or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” But Section 1032 subsection B, Applicability to U.S. Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens is specifically included to note that the executive branch is not required to treat citizens as enemy combatants. Stripping a citizen of rights is, instead, purely optional.
But the most appalling apart of the NDAA is seemingly snuck in with semantics. Section 1032 also includes subsection A, paragraph 4, Waiver for National Security, which apparently allows the Secretary of Defense to waive the requirement criteria of being terrorist-affiliated. And paragraph 3 says that section 1032’s definitions apply to section 1031, the section that stated that the rights of U.S. citizens wouldn’t be affected.
It’s enough to make heads spin.
In a congress that can’t stop bickering long enough to pass a budget that keeps the nation afloat, it is shocking that the U.S. senate can readily unite against liberty in a 93-7 vote in favor of such a massively unpopular bill. They’ve repeatedly said how badly we need a more flexible detention policy for national security, but at what cost? Are they supposed to listen to each other, or to us? President Obama had promised to veto the bill, but on Dec. 14 the White House announced that it would not be vetoing the bill.
The good news is that provisions were added to attempt to make NDAA apply less to U.S. citizens, and language was removed from the bill in July that would have allowed the federal government to use military forces anywhere there were terrorism suspects, which would’ve authorized military operation on U.S. soil.
But controversial sections 1031 and 1032 remain, and the fact that this year’s NDAA used to be even worse seems like little consolation. The reality is that, even as a compromise, this act is a threat to constitutional rights and a massive step in a horribly wrong direction. This is an abusive expansion of presidential power.
A petition exists to lobby for the president to veto the bill, but after the formal announcement that he no longer intends to do so, it seems in vain. Instead, concerned citizens can do their part by staying informed and alert for any further legislation and staying actively engaged in government. We can each do our part by writing to our congresspersons to make sure that our voices are heard.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
