NDAA - National Defense Authorization Act

[spacemaverick]

NDAA - Allows authorities to declare American citizens enemies of the state. I will try and keep this posting going. I am about to retire from law enforcement after 20 years. I don't like the direction this is all going.

NDAA 2012: Ron Paul Warns Bill Would Legalize Martial Law

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/270213/20111220/ndaa-2012-ron-paul-martial-law.htm

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."

NDAA Bill 2012 Passed, Martial-Law now Official (Senator Palpatine Declares Galactic Empire)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJhYhGoNLuo&feature=player_detailpage

[spacemaverick]

Rep. Pearce on the National Defense Authorization Act

A representative speaks out about the bill.

...There were also important objections on the conservative side to this bill, dealing specifically with whether or not the provision in section 1022 excluding American citizens from the “covered persons” language went far enough. This was discussed thoroughly in the Republican Conference before the bill went to the floor for debate. Two of my colleagues, one of whom sits on the Armed Services Committee, had objections to the language. However, after consulting with the Chairman on protection of civil liberties, and getting a supportive response that the Chairman would work in the future to assure our rights are not violated, both Congressmen voted for it. I listened to all objections, from constituents and other Members of the House. I read the language personally many times, and asked my staff to research every objection brought to our attention. We concluded, after many internal discussions and hours of research, that section 1022 sufficiently protected our liberties."....

http://www.thestatecolumn.com/new-mexico/rep-pearce-on-the-national-defense-authorization-act/#ixzz1hHpWXaWR

NDAA Bill Controversy: So who is Considered a Terrorist?

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA) bill contains some controversial language that codifies the detention of anyone, including U.S. citizens, who is suspected of being a terrorist or supporting terrorists.

To be fair, the language of the bill specifically targets terrorists connected to "al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces." (But what does "associated forces" mean?)

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/271024/20111221/ndaa-bill-controversy-who-considered-terrorist.htm

Can bloggers be considered terrorists if they speak out?

[spacemaverick]

Two Four Star Generals Write New York Times Op-ed Against NDAA and Indefinite Detention of Americans

http://theintelhub.com/2011/12/21/two-four-star-generals-write-new-york-times-op-ed-against-ndaa-and-indefinite-detention-of-americans/

Two four star Marine generals have written a stunning op-ed in the New York Times which demands that President Obama veto the National Defense Authorization Act, a bill that allows the government to use the military to indefinitely detain American citizens without due process.

Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar, both 4 star Marine generals, published the piece on December 12. The op-ed starts with a direct demand that President Obama veto the NDAA bill in order to protect our country from the “false choice between our safety and ideals.”

Company Who Lobbied for the NDAA Indefinite Detention Bill Given 23 Million Dollar Contract for Night Raid Equipment


According to reports from the Daily Kos and Russia Today, a company specializing in night raid equipment was awarded a 23 million dollar contract from the Department of Defense and subsequently went on to lobby for the NDAA which has given the government the power to indefinitely detain American citizens.

Surefire LLC openly lobbed for the House version of the NDAA, a bill many have claimed has effectively ended the Bill of Rights, months after receiving the 23 million dollar contact from the DOD.

http://theintelhub.com/2011/12/20/company-who-lobbied-for-the-ndaa-indefinite-detention-bill-given-23-million-dollar-contract-for-night-raid-equipment/

Interesting situation huh?

[spacemaverick]

Top Legal Expert: “President Obama … Says That He Can Kill [Any American Citizen Without Any Charge and] On His Own Discretion. He Can Jail You Indefinitely On His Own Discretion”
December 21, 2011

Government Says It Can Assassinate or Indefinitely Detain Americans on American Soil Without Any Due Process of Law

I’ve previously noted that Obama says that he can assassinate American citizens living on U.S. soil.

This admittedly sounds over-the-top. But one of the nation’s top constitutional and military law experts – Jonathan Turley – agrees.

I don’t think the the Framers ever anticipated that [the American people would be so apathetic]. They assumed that people would hold their liberties close, and that they wouldn’t relax …

http://www.blacklistednews.com/Top_Legal_Expert%3A_%E2%80%9CPresident_Obama_%E2%8 0%A6_Says_That_He_Can_Kill_%5BAny_American_Citizen _Without_Any_Charge_and%5D_On_His_Own_Discretion._ He_Can_Jail_You_Indefinitely_On_His_Own_Discretion %E2%80%9D/17099/0/0/0/Y/M.html

[spacemaverick]

Ron Paul explains his opposition to the NDAA 12/19/11

Paul says the NDAA is the biggest story nobody is talking about. He calls the act really bad, very dangerous, and says that it repeals the 5th amendment.

Ron Paul gets asked about the NDAA at a townhall meeting in New Hampshire on December 19, 2011.

NDAA is the National Defense Authorization Act.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8bbuMQLlqs&feature=player_detailpage

[spacemaverick]

Pentagon gets the go-ahead for offensive cyberwars
Part of NDAA

Within the 680 pages of the Congress-approved National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 are a lot of provisions that the American public might be peeved over if they could comb through all the contents.

In addition of establishing the ability for the president to detain and torture his own citizens indefinitely is also a tiny clump of text which will provide for the commander-in-chief to, once and for all, legally attack the enemies of America over the Internet.Under the controversial defense spending act that is awaiting approval from US President Barack Obama, lawmakers can give the Executive Branch the go-ahead to wage a war over the Web against any nation deemed a threat to America. Specifically, Section 954, “Military Activities in CyberSpace,” states, “Congress affirms that the Department of Defense has the capability, and upon direction by the president may conduct offensive operations in cyberspace to defend our nation, allies and interests.”

The White House originally said that it would veto NDAA FY 2012 if it made it off Capitol Hill, but only days before it left Congress, Press Secretary Jay Carney told the media that the president’s advisers will no longer recommend such action. Thus, the inking of Obama’s name to the document will not just give him the power to pursue computer attacks, but also the ability to detain American indefinitely, employ tactics of torture on prisoners and send his own citizens to foreign institutions for prosecution.

http://rt.com/usa/news/war-cyber-attack-obama-451/print/

This is definitely not a good thing!

[spacemaverick]

An ominous warning!

This is from UFOTV

The Enemy Within - A conspiracy

And then comes NDAA

UFOTV Presents...: The Enemy Within - A Global Conspiracy


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNFOv_mbbLQ&feature=player_detailpage

And the beat goes on. What are we going to do about it? People wake up!

[spacemaverick]

Part I – Congress Attacks the Constitution

by Lawrence Davidson via opinion-maker.org

The U.S. Congress has ended the year 2011 by assaulting the Constitution. The attack came in the form of the 2012 National Defense Appropriations Act (NDAA) which passed both the House (December 14) and the Senate (December 15) by large margins despite having an attached provision (the "Homeland Battlefield Bill") that allows the United States military to take into custody and hold indefinitely without trial, any American citizen designated a "terrorist suspect."
As if to make sure that everyone knew just what they were voting for, Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican from South Carolina who supports the legislation, said on the Senate floor, "the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as a battlefield, including the homeland." That means U.S. citizens designated terrorist suspects are stripped of their protections under the Constitution.

The rest of the story below....

Part II – The Historical Context

Before we are overrun by doom and gloom, it is best to put this situation in historical context. Throughout U.S. history there have been episodes when the Constitution was disregarded and citizens rights trampled on. For instance:

a) As early as 1798 with the Alien and Sedition Acts.
b) In 1830 when President Andrew Jackson ignored the Supreme Court and illegally evicted the Cherokee of Georgia.
c) When the otherwise revered Abraham Lincoln started to ignore due process and arrest and hold people thought to be a danger to the Union cause during the Civil War.
d) Woodrow Wilson, otherwise seen as making the "world safe for democracy" instituted the questionable Espionage Act of 1917 and Sedition Act of 1918.
e) Followed by President Harding’s mostly illegal deportations during the Red Scare of the early 1920s.
f) Then, of course, there was the illegal incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II
g) And, in the 1950s under Truman and Eisenhower, the U.S. went through a second Red Scare entailing blacklists, loyalty oaths and the McCarthy hearings.

There are a number of lessons we can drew from these episodes:

First - The party leaders and administrations that initiated these illegal policies have been both "conservative" and "liberal." Many considered Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson and Abraham Lincoln to be quite progressive for their time. The Federalists of 1798 and the McCarthyite Republicans of the 1950s were seen by many of their contemporaries as opportunistic reactionaries.

Second - Most of the historical attacks on Constitutional protections were situation specific. That is, they were responses to particular conditions such as war and amorphous fears of foreign threats. These conditions allowed for the draconian actions of the government. However, when the crisis (real or imagined) ended, policy swung back toward a more centrist political orientation and rights were restored. One might argue that this is what is happening now, that we are in one of these crises modes, and the government is reacting in character by trashing Constitutional rights. I think that this could be a reasonable interpretation, but for one troubling aspect of the present situation that we will get to at the conclusion of this essay.

Third – The "average" citizen is comfortable with (and indeed sometimes enthusiastic about) the unconstitutional behavior of the government. Thus, as Jonathan Turley put it, "While the Framers [of the Constitution] would have likely expected citizens [to be] in the streets defending their freedoms, this measure [the Homeland Battlefield Bill] was greeted with a shrug and a yawn by most citizens and reporters."

Why would this be so? Keep in mind that the average citizen does not often use his or her rights and sometimes is unaware of what they are. The majority is also normally under the influence of the government and its allied media. To wit, Turley’s "years of war rhetoric." Even when the claims of these influential sources are exaggerated and distorted, the majority has no way to know this.

The population is in need of fact-checkers, a role once, but no longer played by the press. Today’s fact-checkers are a stand-alone vocal minority who contest the exaggerated claims of the government and media, and the abuse of power that often goes along with them. Yet the majority is uncomfortable with fact-checkers and their negative revelations, particularly when they appear outside of traditional contexts (like the press). It is easy for the government to isolate the nay sayers and persuade people that the critics are part of the problem, allied with the enemy, and in need of suppression. Therefore, it is fact-checkers who are in great need of the protection of the Bill of Rights. The truth is that in many places, including the U.S., it is dangerous to tell the truth. Just look at the cases of Bradley Manning and Julian Assange.

Part III – Conclusion (The Troubling Aspect)

Unfortunately, there may be something historically different about the present crisis. It is potentially endless. Terrorism is the poor man’s form of revenge to prevailing economic, political and military domination (direct or by proxy) that is global and on-going. Anyone with a little technical skill and a lot of determination can exact this kind of revenge. And, as long as that happens there will be opportunistic and/or paranoid domestic elements that will use such incidents to isolate, harass and persecute critics of government war-on-terror policies.

If this prognosis is accurate, the only thing that can be expected to end this struggle is a revolutionary change in relations between the West, and particularly the United States, and the non-Western world, particularly the Middle East. No one should be holding their breath as far as this prospect goes. As it stands now, the best one can hope for are pauses in this struggle.

This is a depressing prospect, but it does not relieve anyone interested in the maintenance of political and civil rights from carrying on a determined resistance to their erosion. It is only by vigorously defending and using such rights as free speech that we can hope to sustain the space necessary for critical voices. Think of such rights as muscles. If you don’t want them to atrophy, you have to use them. So, if you want to keep your rights, get out there and use them.


I found these three parts written by other people to be very interesting and true.



http://www.opinion-maker.org/2011/12/the-homeland-battlefield/#

[spacemaverick]

Lessons in Humanity: Habeas Corpus

From Star Trek - The Next Generation


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keZlextkcDI&feature=player_detailpage

[spacemaverick]

By Madison Ruppert
December 24, 2011


I have been extensively covering the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, commonly referred to as the NDAA, and the incredible dangers it presents (including authorization for covert offensive cyberwarfare) since I was first made aware of its existence.

If you’re not familiar with this legislation, please take the critical moments to educate yourself on this issue by reading my article about the predecessor bill, S. 1253, along with my first, second, and third articles about the latter versions along with my coverage of the civilian internee designation and KBR’s move to create teams to make the so-called FEMA camps operational within 72 hours.

This is a large picture that requires stepping back and taking in as much information as possible in order to truly understand what is going on and not be deceived by the traitors in Washington and their cronies in the establishment media outlets.

I also recommend you take a moment to get yourself psychologically prepared for the worst, while hoping for the best.

I have been making a concerted effort to debunk the disinformation peddled by far too many people who claim that, despite the clear language in the bill to the contrary, American citizens cannot be indefinitely detained without charge or trial under the legislation.

Yet, the assault on our most essential civil liberties has been relentless, thanks greatly in part to the establishment media covering the NDAA as little as possible and a concerted effort by some of our so-called representatives like Congressman Tim Griffin to deceive the American people.

Thankfully, Jeff Landry, a freshman Republican Congressman from Louisiana introduced H.R. 3676 which intends, “To amend the detainee provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 to specifically state that United States citizens may not be detained against their will without all the rights of due process afforded to citizens in a court ordained or established by or under Article II of the Constitution of the United States.”

I think this is of dire importance for us all, as the lack of clear language prohibiting the detainee provisions from being applied to United States citizens and other lawful residents currently in the NDAA is nothing short of disturbing.

http://theintelhub.com/2011/12/24/last-hope-rep-landry-introduces-amendment-to-ndaa-to-protect-americans-from-indefinite-detention-without-due-process/

[spacemaverick]

It saddens me to see my country headed in this direction. This message that is conveyed through the various avenues from the people in each of my entries above need to be spread far and wide. This needs to go viral if we have any chance of staving off any further erosion of our liberties. I am a veteran and soon to be retired law enforcement and I take constitutional liberties seriously.

I pledge that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies both Foreign and DOMESTIC and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

Wake up my friends!

[spacemaverick]

The National Defense Authorization Act is the Greatest Threat to Civil Liberties Americans Face

By Forbes

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/12/05/the-national-defense-authorization-act-is-the-greatest-threat-to-civil-liberties-americans-face/


..."What’s truly at stake when we start talking about Big Government and such is far more dangerous and preposterous than high marginal tax rates.

We’re talking about the stripping away of our most basic freedoms. We’re talking about a potential state that can call me a terrorist for writing this blog post and then lock me up and throw away the key..."

Above taken from the article.

[murmur]

Marginalizing Ron Paul

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/marginalizing_ron_paul_20111229/

As another recent example of Paul’s sanity on the national security issues that have led to a flight from reason on the part of politicians since the 9/11 attacks, I offer the Texan’s criticism this week of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The act would allow the president to order indeterminate military imprisonment without trial of those accused of supporting terrorism, a policy that Obama signed into law and Paul opposes, as the congressman did George W. Bush’s Patriot Act.



Paul said: “Little by little, in the name of fighting terrorism, our Bill of Rights is being repealed. ... The Patriot Act, as bad as its violation of the 4th Amendment, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed (NDAA) continues that slip toward tyranny and in fact accelerates it significantly ... The Bill of Rights has no exemption for ‘really bad people’ or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. This is not a weakness in our legal system; it is the very strength of our legal system.” That was exactly the objection raised by The New York Times in its own excellent editorial challenging the constitutionality of the NDAA. It should not be difficult for those same editorial writers to treat Ron Paul as a profound and principled contributor to a much-needed national debate on the limits of federal power instead of attempting to marginalize his views beyond recognition.

================================================== =======================================


Right on !!!!!

I mean come on now.

It's time to take a stand.

If not now......when???

[spacemaverick]

@ murmur, If we do not attempt to spread the word like we are doing now, people are not going to really know what the NDAA really has contained within its substance. The NDAA is usually passed every year because it deals with the military budget. Only this time the part regarding military action against terrorism was changed to give the TPTB more power and pass the torch to the military to deal with the problem using tribunals. I think there will be a number of military people that will stand by their oaths and oppose this.

[murmur]

I think there will be a number of military people that will stand by their oaths and oppose this.

I hopefully agree....but I don't want to depend on that.

Time to take a stand now.....the internet won't be this free for much longer.