The National Defense Authorization Act: Our Disappearing Rights and Liberties

[Hash Zeppelin]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alton-lu/the-national-defense-auth_b_1180869.html

The National Defense Authorization Act: Our Disappearing Rights and Liberties

Back in the beginning stages of the War on Terrorism, President Bush enacted the Patriot Act. This allowed the government to spy on citizens, monitoring their activities in order to discern whether or not someone is a terrorist. It brought about changes in law enforcement that allowed agencies to search phones, financial records, etc.

One of the most controversial aspects of the law is authorization of indefinite detention of non-U.S. citizens. Immigrants suspected of being terrorists would be detained without trial until the War on Terrorism finished.

On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed a law known as the National Defense Authorization Act for the 2012 fiscal year, or the H.R. 1540. Congress passes this act every year to monitor the budget for the Department of Defense. However, this year the NDAA bill has passed with new provisions that should have the entire country up with pitchforks.

Normally, this is just an act which details the monetary calls of the Department of Defense which is passed every year. However, the act passed for the 2012 fiscal year changes the bill and can be seen as an extension of the Patriot Act. Now, the indefinite detention has been extended to U.S. citizens as well. If people are spied on and suspected of being terrorists, they may be detained indefinitely without trial.

In a country famous for the belief that one is innocent until proven guilty, this is an upsetting change that is being foisted upon the American people with many unaware of what it means.

The provisions of the Patriot Act allow the government to spy upon U.S. citizens and the NDAA allows the government to whisk a citizen away for no reason other than being suspected of terrorism.

So why has this law been passed when it is very easily seen as unconstitutional? The Fourth Amendment grants liberty from unreasonable seizures, while the Sixth guarantees every U.S. citizen a trial in front of a jury. No matter what supporters of the bill might have said about the provisions being misunderstood, the simple fact is that it is unconstitutional.

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has made arguments for this provision, stating that the law would apply for US citizens' turncoats who have aided Al-Qaeda or other associated organization. He gave a long-winded story of how a U.S. citizen might fly to Pakistan to receive terrorist training, then return home and shoot down fellow citizens a few miles from the airport.

It's a disgusting show that Graham is pulling. He has made an example of how a single U.S. citizen might become a turncoat and because of that possible risk, the citizen's right to a trial and jury has been abolished.

Section 1022's use of the word 'requirement' also has been misinterpreted as allowing U.S. citizens to be detained, but this provision does not in any way create this authority. This provision must be read in the context of Section 1022's purpose, which is reflected in its title and relates solely to 'military custody of foreign al Qaida terrorists.' The term "requirement" does not mean that detention of U.S. citizens is optional under this provision.
He merely states that the people have 'misinterpreted' the provisions within the bill.

This is a situation in which they are able to detain U.S. citizens, but they won't because that's wrong. I will repeat: "They are allowed through the NDAA to detain U.S. citizens, but they won't because that's wrong."

Similar to Griffin's response, President Obama has released a statement regarding the H.R. 1540
(NDAA):

Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.
President Obama says that his administration will not authorize the indefinite detention of American citizens. Yet Obama also said that he would close Guantanamo Bay. Obama also said he would recall the troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. Obama also said he would end the Bush tax cuts.

It doesn't matter the reason these promises were not kept. What matters is that they weren't. Obama says his administration will not authorize the indefinite detention of citizens. But that could change. The interpretation of this bill can change on a dime. These politicians who say there is nothing to fear could quickly change whenever they see fit.

These implications grow larger as we know there is no single accepted definition of terrorism present in the United States. The State Department defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

Under this definition, the entire United States can be seen as terrorists. The government had planned the operations in Iraq and has resulted in over 100,000 civilian deaths. It can also be said that the U.S. is changing views of terrorism throughout the world... influencing an audience. Terrorism cannot be specifically defined as attacks against the United States; therefore, the United States might have been terrorizing parts of the Middle East.

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has stated that there are laws regarding terrorist suspects in America in place by the Department of Justice. Issues such as having an armed weapon or having a food supply lasting at least seven days can be grounds for terrorism.

I look to my well-supplied pantry filled with foods my loving mother had purchased from Costco. I'm not one to count it all, but I'd say it would last my entire family over a week.

My father legally owns a handgun. There's something about protecting his family that is important to him, so he keeps a gun nearby.

I am writing a story that is against what the politicians in Washington have voted for. Can I be seen as aiding Al-Qaeda because I am attempting to change the views of the public to something that is against government; because there is a gun in my home and we have a well-supplied pantry?

Can I be seen as a terrorist under the definition of terrorism? Yes I can. Will I? I hope not.

Well this Horrible Fascist Mess of a Law passed! The Bill of rights is Basically gone.

Solution, Impeachment of everyone in all 3 branches of government, constitutional convention, or if they wanna go the hard route.....

 

[SacredBreh]

It is the punishment for Treason.

Peace

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

I think this got reopened or something. I posted this a while ago, and I am pretty sure it got closed for being political.

I dont even think you can impeach many positions. what the hell do you do about federal judges that are appointed and crooked.

 

[Preacher]

"Immigrants suspected of being terrorists would be detained without trial"

Well I for one can see no possible way this could ever go wrong.

 

[Hydro-Soil]

I said it before and I'll say it again...

We're living in pre-collapse russia.

The politics are completely corrupt and a joke, the economy is a bloody mess through thieving, over 50% of the population is a govt employee and the other 50% are snitches for some alphabet agency or another....

DHS, and now the military, can roll up and make you disappear (we don't have a siberia) without a phone call or trial.

So.. what part of this is supposed to resemble a Democratic Republic based on individual soveriegnty?

Buy your ammo in small lots and pay cash.

 

[HOPS5K]

Man...fuck those fuckers that voted for this!

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

I would like to know the exact person that suggested that it be in the bill in the first place.

 

[Mtn. Nectar]

hydro speaks well........

ganj on................

 

[strawbrrygirl]

War on drugs or War on terror from one to the other! Thank goodness that their building private prisons in record numbers! The Gov is against its people! When is boiling point! Is it gonna be Sandusky walking or some random police brutality! Who knows!

 

[Preacher]

I sure would enjoy it if one of the more conservative states decided to do something useful for a change and file criminal charges against the US so the Supreme Court would have original jurisdiction and kill this law as fast as humanly possible.

 

[SacredBreh]

Yep, it was locked.... then one day it wasn't.... so I posted!

Yep, it was locked.... then one day it wasn't.... so I posted!

It is a prepatory law...... they know what is coming and their making it legal to do what they are going to do about it.

You don't make a law or act 8 years after 9/11 for foreign terrorists.... you make it for the "domestic" ones..... or at least that is what they are going to label them.

Peace

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

^systematic dismantling of the constitution

 

[Marquis de Sod]

i believe Lindsey Graham inserted that, but it could of bin someone else. McCain and he both spoke directly to the "indefinite detainment" clause, which was Sec. 1032 of that bill (actually secs 1031 and 1032. this is all old news i tried to get anyone i could to write their congressmen about this clause and it did no good. it was ratified about 95 to 5. then the shit hit the fan tho.) McCain is a douche, i mean just look at his running mate, haha.

however there has been a HUGE fallout against this section. and many senators and reps have sponsored or cosponsored bills to remove this article. among them is my rep. Rick Larson, and the bill is called HR3702, and this is what Larson wrote to me (part of it anyway).:
"H.R. 3702, known as the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011. H.R. 3702 was introduced by Representative John Garamendi on December 16, 2011, and states unmistakably that the government cannot indefinitely detain American citizens or lawful U.S. residents without charging that person with a crime. The bill further codifies a "clear-statement rule" that requires Congress to expressly authorize detention authority when it comes to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. "

Just as it was a waste of time to write every congressman from every state i have lived in in the past to remove Sec 1032 from the NDAct, it is now very important that anyone who reads this do the same to tell their Rep. to vote for HR 3207. it is EXTREMELY important that this bill, and the sister bill in the Senate (don't know the bill number) gets ratified and passed into law. As fucked up as our govt is, there is still.....strength in numbers. Just look at what happened with Planned Parenthood and the Susan Koman fdn. I just don't fucking understand how amerikan douche bags can get so enraged by that kind of stupid shit, yet this art. 1032 gets NO FUCKING ATTENTION WHATSOEVER. so i suspect nothing will come of HR 3207. i hope they prove me wrong. and in case you missed it last week, THE VERY NEXT DAY KOMAN pulled the plug on Planned Parenthood TWENTY FOUR (24) SENATORS CALLED S.B.K. FDN TO EXPRESS THEIR OPPOSITION!!!!!!! i have never heard of such a thing. and for a small %age of their total budget. Can you imagine the number of people who must have called their senators? WHERE IN THE FUCK ARE AMERIKANS PRIORITIES? up our fucking asses, that's where.

 

[PoopyTeaBags]

I would like to know the exact person that suggested that it be in the bill in the first place.

honostly im almost positive this was introduced by two democrats of mi... Debbie stabenow and Carl levin... but i could be wrong but im pretty sure they are the ones that sponsored it and brought it to the floor....

 

[Marquis de Sod]

doesn't really matter except if you are in their district and you can VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE. Dems and Reps alike both voted for this AFTER it was heavily debated in front of their faces. with objections from Rand Paul and others. it violates three of the first amendments too, not just one.

you can write to your senators directly at www.Senate.gov in support of what bill i dont know, should i hold everybodys hand and go find it? it would take an hour. it would be a Companion Bill to HR 3702 if you want to go to senate.gov and look around. i did just do a search on the senate site for hr3702 and all i got was old news eariest from 2009, so there might not even be a companion bill to it yet. time to write your senator and tell him to write one up!!!! You have the name of the bill up top there The Due Process Guarantee Act. GET WIDDIT!

you can write and be more specific about it to your Representative at www.house.gov (at least these clowns both got easy to remember websites, and they work good too,) and then write to them an email under Contact us, fill out the form and then tell them to support HR 3702.

you can also do this for anywhere you have lived as long as you have the zip code handy, and you can get that easily enough. you have to fill out your address completely. i still remember the addresses of about four states i have lived in so i can write to a congressman/senators of four states and have them pay more attention to it that if you write from them out of state. most will not even send a reply to people who email them from out of state, and emails dont carry near the weight of a letter or a phone call.