January 7th, 2012

NDAA: Open Season for the Police State


Oath Keepers salutes Down Size DC and the Tenth Amendment Center.

-

Urban Warfare

Urban Warfare

-

Read at source:

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/01/04/ndaa-open-season-for-the-police-state/

NDAA: Open Season for the Police State

By Jim Babka, Downsize DC

How the New Indefinite Detention Provisions can be used on Americans

Congress just passed, and the President just signed, a bill that gives legal authority to the President to kidnap and perpetually imprison persons, including American citizens, without the benefit of due process.

Members of Congress, in the days leading up to the vote, tried to assure their constituents that they have nothing to fear — that the bill doesn’t apply to Americans.

Some were lying. Most were deceived.

Now, I don’t want to imply that Barack Obama plans to sweep up every one of his critics (or even a select few) because of statements they’ve uttered publicly. That is overstatement. The law doesn’t permit that. But consider the following scenario…

You object to the way the Federal Leviathan State is run. You gather, every other Tuesday, with others who share your values. We’ll call your fictional group the Constitution League (CL).

One night, a new fellow shows up. He’s frustrated and outspoken. He complains that the time for meetings is over. Something must be done — something that will “get their attention.” You’re uncomfortable with his remarks but unsure how to respond.

You hope he never returns, and he doesn’t.

What you don’t know, until months later, is that one of our CL colleagues, the chapter Vice President, followed the vocal man out to the parking lot. The two exchanged email addresses and phone numbers. Then, your local VP reached out to a third man, a member of a CL chapter in the nearest big city. The three met regularly. They plotted and executed their own terrorist plot on a U.S. Government facility.

Now, your group meeting was the place they met. The Vice President used his CL email account. CL is all over the news. CL is now, for all intents and purposes, a terrorist group.

And you? Well, you’ve donated to the terrorist organization. You’ve participated in its meetings. The night this angry man walked in, you didn’t call the authorities.

* Can the President have the military come and arrest you? Yes!
* Can he (or she) send you to a military tribunal for trial or just hold you indefinitely in a military facility, without charges? Yes!

Even the bill co-sponsor, Senator McCain, appears to agree with this assessment. Senator Rand Paul asked John McCain, on the Senate floor, “…under the provisions, would it be possible that an American citizen could be declared an ‘enemy combatant’ and sent to Guantanamo Bay, and detained indefinitely?” McCain responded, “I think that as long as that individual, NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE, if they POSE A THREAT to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue the threat.” {Emphasis Added}

Wait a minute. Wasn’t there a provision in this bill that exempted Americans?

Despite what your Congressional office may have told you (if you called during the debate over this bill) the answer to that question is an emphatic NO!

The relevant sections of the bill are 1021 and 1022.

* Section 1021 asserts the President’s authority to arrest suspected (not convicted) terrorists and gives him the option to choose whether or not they even get a trial, and if so, what kind of trial.

* Section 1022 requires that a certain class of terrorist get no trial. Instead they must be held in military prisons, for as long as this President, or any future President desires.

SECTION 1021

Section 1021 is very expansive in its reach. It “includ[es] any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”

* Who is “any person?”
* What is a “belligerent act?”
* What is “direct support?”

One could be safe in assuming these words mean whatever a creatively-minded prosecutor, a flexible judge, and an ignorant jury define them to mean — EXCEPT THAT, UNDER THIS ACT, ONE MIGHT NEVER GET AS FAR AS A COURT HEARING.

These terms will be defined by the bureaucrats in power.

They could be used against political opponents.

1021 has NO exceptions. There’s not even a hint of an exception. Remember, that section gave the President the authority to arrest you and a set of options on how you were to be handled. These choices are completely divorced from the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments, as well as the Treason provisions of Article III. The President’s new alternatives are…

1. Detention without trial by the military
2. Trial by a military commission
3. Trial by some other court of the President’s choosing
4. Shipping you off to a foreign jurisdiction (info here)

SECTION 1022

1022 is a REQUIREMENT — a binding mandate upon the President. President Obama threatened to veto the bill, but only because he feared 1022 would restrict his power too much. http://gawker.com/5866210/jon-stewart-bashes-obama-for-backing-indefinite-detention-bill

This section is for your fellow CL members/plotters. Whereas, you got snatched up for “support” or “aid” to the plot, they actually carried out an attack, or as the section itself indicates…

“…participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.”

Section 1022 requires the President to go with option #1 above — the other three options are off the table. In other words, no trial, either in a civilian court or military tribunal.

In the final version of the bill, after a public storm started to erupt, the title of the section was changed to indicate that it only applied to “foreign al-Qaeda terrorists.” However, titles are not normally considered part of the law but merely summary descriptions to the reader of a bill.

But this title is especially IRONIC, because it’s this section that includes the so-called exemption for American citizens. Why would you need to exempt American citizens from a section of law that applies to “foreign al-Qaeda terrorists?”

The answer is because the section applies to any kind of “terrorist,” domestic or foreign, no matter what the title says.

And here’s the so-called exemption, with the key word highlighted…

The REQUIREMENT to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

That means that military custody, without a trial, is mandated by law, but that the President, at his discretion or by written policy, may issue a waiver on the basis that a person is an American citizen.

If this provision was a true safeguard for American citizens, then the line would’ve been written like this…

Military custody of citizens of the United States is still prohibited under this act.

See the difference? It’s a requirement that can be waived at discretion, as opposed to a prohibition.

Now, do you realize Congress has given the Federal State the power to use military detention on its own citizens? And that they’ve made it possible to wage a war on peaceful activists, if they can just incite someone in your group to attempt something violent?

Don’t worry. It’s not like the FBI is busy infiltrating meetings, entrapping some dullard into a plot, equipping and financing his efforts, and then claiming credit for stopping another terrorist attack! Oh wait, that’s happened about 40 times since 9/11.

Thus, to complete our story, the angry man who showed up at the CL meeting might’ve work for the FBI. And he duped two idiots in your group, who put you and your fellow members in legal jeopardy.

This new law is that serious. President Obama has claimed he won’t use this power. All that needs to happen now is a provocative incident. Then, all bets are off. Since these nearly unlimited, un-constitutional powers are now law, this President, or a future one, will be able to kidnap and disappear Americans. It could very easily be open season for the police state.

—–

Jim Babka is the President of Downsize DC Foundation and DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

DownsizeDC.org will soon launch a campaign to repeal these sections from the law.

Copyright © 2012 by Jim Babka. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit to the author, DownsizeDC.org

and TenthAmendmentCenter.com is given.

If you enjoyed this post: Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,

-




SUPPORT OUR BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN
Placing billboards outside of military bases to remind service members of their oath


Please donate and support Oath Keepers mission, every little bit helps!



 Read More Posts

Comments posted belong to the commenter alone, and are not endorsed by Oath Keepers or the administrators for this site. We will remove offensive, racist, or threatening comments.

30 Responses to “NDAA: Open Season for the Police State”

Pages: [1] 2 3 » Show All

  1. 1
    Austrian Economics is Color Blind Says:

    No doubt this pretended legislation is intended to elicit an angry response from its victims.

    So, for the record, since the Constitution is actually against such authority, the rule of law is on the people’s side, rather than on the side of government.

    Here are some helpful citations we can use in our own defense, should government violate our rights.

    Federalist papers No. 78

    -Begin excerpt-

    There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

    -Skip-

    The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

    Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

    -End excerpt-

    Federalist papers No. 84

    -Begin excerpt-

    The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious Blackstone, in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital: “To bereave a man of life, [says he] or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.” And as a remedy for this fatal evil he is everywhere peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas corpus act, which in one place he calls “the BULWARK of the British Constitution.”

    -End Excerpt-

    Federalist papers No. 83

    -Begin excerpt-

    The rules of legal interpretation are rules of common sense, adopted by the courts in the construction of the laws. The true test, therefore, of a just application of them is its conformity to the source from which they are derived.

    -End excerpt-

    Federalist papers No. 46

    -Begin excerpt-

    But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity. In the contest with Great Britain, one part of the empire was employed against the other. The more numerous part invaded the rights of the less numerous part. The attempt was unjust and unwise; but it was not in speculation absolutely chimerical. But what would be the contest in the case we are supposing? Who would be the parties? A few representatives of the people would be opposed to the people themselves; or rather one set of representatives would be contending against thirteen sets of representatives, with the whole body of their common constituents on the side of the latter.

    -Skip-

    Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

    -End excerpt-

    Federalist papers No. 28:

    -Begin excerpt-

    If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.

    -End excerpt-

  2. 2
    Carl Koch Says:

    I complained about this piece of onerous legislation well before it went to the senate. I informed Ralph Hall, Senator Cornyn and Senator Hutchison that to vote for this bill in its current form was tantamount to treason against the citizens of America. I further asked them to support the Udall amendment to remove the offending language from the bill. As of this date, only Senator Hutchison has responded. Her explanation was basically as indicated “Oh it doesn’t apply to American citizens.” None of the representatives of the people have scheduled town hall meetings. If they do, I plan to confront them on their votes. For now, they refuse to discuss the issue. As I have indicated, I consider a vote for this legislation to be an act of overt treason against the citizens of the United States of America. These politicians have abrogated any claim to morality, patriotism or integrity. As far as I am concerned they are kin to the tin pot dictators we find in most other “progressive” countries.

  3. 3
    Lee Says:

    Sleep with one eye open!

  4. 4
    Deep Crapola Says:

    These incredible, anti-American mandates won’t be “fully” implemented until after O’Bummer is re-elected, and you don’t have to be related to any anti-O’Bummer groups to be attacked by the new civilian army corps of Amerika (CACA). Just be an anti-O’Bummer, pro-American, and you’ll become their next target.

  5. 5
    Wasington76 Says:

    Michael Scheuer, the CIA’s former agent charged with tracking Osama bin Laden, endorsed Ron Paul in a Sunday column he published on his web site.

    In the piece, Scheuer said: “Electing anyone but Ron Paul will further increase the already strong chances of widespread Islamist-conducted violence inside the United States.”

    “Michael Scheuer understands that only Dr. Paul will put our national security first and stop the foreign wars and nation building,” said Jesse Benton, national campaign chairman. “Our campaign is very proud to have his support.”

    Scheuer spent 22 years as a CIA intelligence officer, and is now a blogger and political analyst who serves as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Peace and Security Studies.

    He served as chief of the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center from 1996 to 1999. He also worked as a special adviser to the chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004.

  6. 6
    Son of the Republic Says:

    What means this martial array but to intimidate the American people into submission?
    Our chains have already been forged.

    We the people remove our consent from this government.
    We will abolish this government.
    We will form a new GOvernment.
    We will set new Guards for our future security.
    It is our Right and our Duty.

    There is no retreat but in submission and slavery.

  7. 7
    Rottenflieger Says:

    Actually, as long as Oath Keepers exists, I’m glad the government has those new powers.

    RON PAUL 1912!!!

  8. 8
    Wasington76 Says:

    Soldiers on Lockdown After ‘Sensitive’ Military Equipment is Stolen from Washington Base Published January 08, 2012 http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/08/soldiers-on-lockdown-after-sensitive-military-equipment-is-stolen-from/

  9. 9
    Austrian Economics is Color Blind Says:

    Rottenflieger @ comment #7,

    I thought that was funny because I think I understand the paradigm from which that comes. :)

    But to your point: Why would you care, one way or the other, about Oath Keepers’ response to violations of the Constitution such as the NDAA? As I understand it, Oath Keepers respects every citizens’ right to believe anything they want, whether it’s Socialism, Communism, or whatever.

    It’s government that’s the problem; For everyone else, it would be nice if we could just talk about Austrian Economics, and expose the flaws in the Labor Theory of Value – but if you want to believe in Marxism and even try to get a bunch of citizens together and choose for your own selves to pool your own personal money and form a commune, no one here, I believe, wants to use the government to stop you from doing so.

    You’re going to be the poorer for living that way, because you choose to not specialize; but the point is you’re welcome to do so.

    We just don’t want government forcing US to participate in that, because it’s a violation of individual inalienable rights.

  10. 10
    Jack S. Says:

    Can you imagine that with this bill now the law of the land that someone like Mr.Jones is all
    worried and spending a great deal of time with the big bad lies made up about Governor Ventura?
    What a total distraction, and with over 463 comments it becomes the great ballyhoo of moronic theater for all the masses.

    Since as far back as the 90’s I can name at least 5o major felonies that I (a total nobody), yes that’s it, JV is the BODY we are all nobodies, anywhy, have been rumored to have committed, spread around on purpose that I committed, investigated by police agencies that I have committed, why would Mr Jones spend so much time on this one case of lies, the cemeteries are full of individual nobodies murdered by false witnessing of this sort.

    Mr Jones, right before Christmas, suffered an epiphany moment when he was interviewing former OK police who had stood down to terroristic threats from federal officials in the mid-nineties, the epiphany came in two parts, the immediate one was, and clearly vocalized, ‘well if you guys hadn’t stood down back then where would we be today?’, the second came more slowly, and only exposed itself on his next program, where you could just tell he thought, that ‘well maybe this can still happen, in some other situation, and so on and so forth, be a rallying cry for liberty.’

    Mr. Jones it ain’t gonna happen, not because of courage, but because of comfort. You can never compete with comfort Mr. Jones. The Federal Government has been hard at creating near millionaire cops for over two decades. Not to mention the fact that in any large city, the feds have the goods on nearly the whole of the police agencies, and if any trouble is made for the feds, they will see to it that 90% of the agency personnel go to jail.

    Mr Jones your naive epiphanies are cute and all but what do they have to do with how the real world works?

Pages: [1] 2 3 » Show All

Leave a Reply

© 2012 www.oathkeepers.org | Oath Keepers Corp Address: 5130 S. Fort Apache Rd - Las Vegas, NV 89148