This is the clearest article on this NDAA issue I've seen:
Saturday 17 December 2011
by: Ralph Lopez, War Is a Crime | Report
At some point a sideshow to a story becomes so painfully obvious that it becomes the story, and this now should be: Why is the media taking such pains to knowingly and falsely claim that the new power of the military to detain and imprison people without charge or trial, for life, does not include US citizens? We know what happened. The Bill of Rights has been overturned. And enough has been written on the deceptive language first warned of by Congressman Justin Amash, when he told The Grand Rapids Press that the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was "carefully crafted to mislead the public," for newspaper editors to know better.
Thewhen the House passed the final House-Senate Conference Committee version of the NDAA:
Specifically, the bill would require that the military take custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates and who is involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. There is an exemption for U.S. citizens.
As has been pointed out repeatedly by civil libertarians, the cunning language is technically correct, because "require" is different than "allow," but although the bill does not "require" the executive branch to place American citizens in military detention without charge or trial for life, it does indeed "allow" it.
Although Sections 1031 and 1032 were renumbered 1021 and 1022 in the Conference Committee (makes it harder to Google) the substance is still intact. The US military can bust down your door at any time, given the proper go ahead by the executive branch, take you away, never charge you with a crime, never give you a trial, and lock you up, torture you, or even kill you. There is a bit of new razzle-dazzle in the new:
"Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."
The problem is that "existing law," as the traitor occupying the senate seat for the Great State of South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, reiterated, is the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court ruling in Padilla v. Rumsfeld, which temporarily upheld Bush's authority to hold American citizen Jose Padilla without charge or trial, as an "enemy combatant," even though he was arrested on US soil with the full rights of an American-born citizen. Judge Michael Luttig in that decision fully expected the question to go before the Supreme Court, before Bush pulled a fast one and said suddenly that Padilla could have a civilian trial after being held in isolation and tortured for 3 1/2 years. That made Luttig go ballistic. Now he was the last guy to have overturned the Bill of Rights.
In a Washington Post report "Judge Luttig Slams Bush Administration in Padilla Case" the Post (reposted in the Legal Reader) said:
The appeals court opinion reflected a tone of anger that is rare for a federal court addressing the United States government, particularly in a matter of presidential authority.
Luttig said the government's actions created the appearance "that the government may be attempting to avoid" Supreme Court review in a matter of "especial national importance."
So bottom line, yes, this still means you.
Stephen Lendman at OpEdNews.com points out a number of other articles that are part of the media disinformation campaign, in "Obama Approves Draconian Police State Law." A Washington Post editorial said that the final bill passed:
"no longer contain[s] some of the most odious measures contained in earlier drafts. Those would have required military detention for both foreign nationals and U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism activities....The new approach is designed to limit military detention to foreign al-Qaeda operatives..."
Again, the new bill doesn't require the military detention of Americans, but absolutely allows it. The most "odious measures" are still in.
The Post also invoked the disingenuous "require" versus "allow" spin when it reported after the House approved of the Conference Committee compromise bill:
The White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the measure, arguing that it would have required the military, rather than civilian law enforcement, to detain terrorism suspects apprehended on American soil.
But Obama's problem wasn't military involvement in American arrests. It was that the law would have required it for "suspects" he had deemed "associated" with terrorism, rather than leaving it to the president's discretion.
What is becoming more worrisome than what Anonymous calls this "outright declaration of WAR against the American People," is the fact that the Congress, the president, and their media minions are working so hard to conceal it. If you need to overthrow the Constitution in order to fight terrorists, why not just say so? Why the guilty, criminal frame of mind? Why the contortions of language which make it seem that the bill does everything but what it actually does?
In a NY Times Op-Ed two retired four-star marine generals (Charles Krulak and Joseph Hoar) write:
One provision would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past.
And this is only the print media. The broadcast media is still acting as if the sudden transition to martial law never happened (when the military can arrest anyone in the middle of the night on Executive Branch orders, it is martial law.)
The kicker is the military doesn't even want this new job. They are built for fighting and winning wars abroad. Krulak and Hoar write:
It would force on the military responsibilities it hasn't sought. This would violate not only the spirit of the post-Reconstruction act limiting the use of the armed forces for domestic law enforcement but also our trust with service members, who enlist believing that they will never be asked to turn their weapons on fellow Americans.
Thomas Jefferson said:
"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
By violating their Oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution, these senators have made themselves "domestic enemies" of the Constitution. This is Day One of the Overthrow, which we shall fight, and Day One of the Media Silence. As Anonymous says, war has been declared on the American people. It is appropriate to always end with the list of those who betrayed us December 15, Bill of Rights Day, a day of infamy. These are the names, and their names are Treason. And this includes Obama who signed it.
The Treasonous 383
SENATE: YEAs ---86
Jackson Lee (TX)
Lungren, Daniel E.
Sánchez, Linda T.
Johnson, E. B.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)