The National Defense Authorization Act - URGENT ACTION REQUIRED
STU~PWCM~JLA~POTL~AFCL
2011/12/14 14:57:59
Please email or (preferably) fax your Senators and Representatives TODAY, and go viral. Let's DELUGE them with objections. Fax numbers for all Congressmen can be found at http://www.contactingthecongress.org. Thanks, Stu (remember to change my name to yours in the closing).
Dear Congressman,
You and I both know that freedom is not free. Its price cannot be measured in dollars - and its defense requires eternal vigilance. On December 1, the U.S. Senate passed S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), by a vote of 93-7. A slightly different version of NDAA, H.R. 1540, had already passed the U.S. House in May, and it has been reconciled with the Senate version in a closed session of a Joint Conference Committee.
The NDAA is passed annually to specify the budget and expenditures for the U.S. Department of Defense, but this year's version would essentially strip American citizens of due process - protections that used to set us apart from despotic nations. The Senate version of the NDAA declares the homeland to be part of the battlefield in the "War on Terror." In simple terms, Sections 1031 and 1032 of S. 1867 allow American citizens to be detained indefinitely - without charges or trial - until the War on Terror is declared over.
There has been some confusion over exactly what the Senate bill stipulates.
(1) It is believed that the Feinstein Amendment #1456, which passed on Dec. 1 (by a vote of 99-1), says that no provision of Sec. 1031 can be taken to "affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens." In reality, this was added nearly unanimously at the last minute to appease those of us rightly opposed to these detention provisions. In the Congressional Record that day, there are arguments from Senators Lindsey Graham and Carl Levin, both of whom supported this amendment, stating they believe the President and Congress already have the authority to detain American Citizens, since the Supreme Court hasn't yet ruled otherwise. This is not the case (the absence of a Supreme Court decision does not invalidate due process provisions preexisting in the Constitution), but it explains why the bill's main supporters did not oppose the Feinstein amendment.
(2) It is believed that the Senate bill already exempts American Citizens. Sec. 1032 states: "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States." Please don't fall for this cleverly chosen language. A careful reading of the suspect sections bears out that, while there is no requirement to detain an American citizen, the act thereof is not explicitly prohibited. By extension, this section is implying it is permitted.
The power to determine which American citizens will be indefinitely detained without charges or trial will in fact be left to the President alone under the suspect provisions of the NDAA. I'm certain you would agree that something as important as overturning longstanding American jurisprudence deserves to be the subject of a vigorous debate in a public forum. But, late last week, the House, by an overwhelming majority (406-17), passed a motion that allowed this Joint Committee to meet in secret. Last night, the House and Senate conferees emerged without having changed the offending detainee provisions of the NDAA. In fact, the section numbers (formerly 1031 and 1032) have been changed to 1021 and 1022 to hide the freedom shredding language from Congress and the people.
A vote on the conference report could come as early as today in the House of Representatives.
It is imperative you vote NO on the NDAA (H.R. 1540 / S. 1867) Conference Report unless Secs. 1021 and 1022 are removed, or modified so as to explicitly exclude all U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens.
In Liberty,
Stewart XXXXXXXX
Dear Congressman,
You and I both know that freedom is not free. Its price cannot be measured in dollars - and its defense requires eternal vigilance. On December 1, the U.S. Senate passed S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), by a vote of 93-7. A slightly different version of NDAA, H.R. 1540, had already passed the U.S. House in May, and it has been reconciled with the Senate version in a closed session of a Joint Conference Committee.
The NDAA is passed annually to specify the budget and expenditures for the U.S. Department of Defense, but this year's version would essentially strip American citizens of due process - protections that used to set us apart from despotic nations. The Senate version of the NDAA declares the homeland to be part of the battlefield in the "War on Terror." In simple terms, Sections 1031 and 1032 of S. 1867 allow American citizens to be detained indefinitely - without charges or trial - until the War on Terror is declared over.
There has been some confusion over exactly what the Senate bill stipulates.
(1) It is believed that the Feinstein Amendment #1456, which passed on Dec. 1 (by a vote of 99-1), says that no provision of Sec. 1031 can be taken to "affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens." In reality, this was added nearly unanimously at the last minute to appease those of us rightly opposed to these detention provisions. In the Congressional Record that day, there are arguments from Senators Lindsey Graham and Carl Levin, both of whom supported this amendment, stating they believe the President and Congress already have the authority to detain American Citizens, since the Supreme Court hasn't yet ruled otherwise. This is not the case (the absence of a Supreme Court decision does not invalidate due process provisions preexisting in the Constitution), but it explains why the bill's main supporters did not oppose the Feinstein amendment.
(2) It is believed that the Senate bill already exempts American Citizens. Sec. 1032 states: "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States." Please don't fall for this cleverly chosen language. A careful reading of the suspect sections bears out that, while there is no requirement to detain an American citizen, the act thereof is not explicitly prohibited. By extension, this section is implying it is permitted.
The power to determine which American citizens will be indefinitely detained without charges or trial will in fact be left to the President alone under the suspect provisions of the NDAA. I'm certain you would agree that something as important as overturning longstanding American jurisprudence deserves to be the subject of a vigorous debate in a public forum. But, late last week, the House, by an overwhelming majority (406-17), passed a motion that allowed this Joint Committee to meet in secret. Last night, the House and Senate conferees emerged without having changed the offending detainee provisions of the NDAA. In fact, the section numbers (formerly 1031 and 1032) have been changed to 1021 and 1022 to hide the freedom shredding language from Congress and the people.
A vote on the conference report could come as early as today in the House of Representatives.
It is imperative you vote NO on the NDAA (H.R. 1540 / S. 1867) Conference Report unless Secs. 1021 and 1022 are removed, or modified so as to explicitly exclude all U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens.
In Liberty,
Stewart XXXXXXXX
Read More: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=3...
I have sent off emails and sent this to my friends as well!!
"He who would trade freedom for security deserves, and will have, neither." - Thomas Jefferson.
The problem is that the incremental security comes at the cost of government control. The more control central government has, the more dictatorial it becomes. And governments are loathe to surrender any power once they attain it. Government becomes the very tyrant you intended it to protect you from.
Mexico has claimed that if we use the military on the borders we will become a military state yet they use their military to secure their borders. We are in dangerous times that require drastic measures. Do I trust Obama with this power...hell no but he is a fluke and there can be powers within to control his chaotic behaviour, we unfortunately have chaos all over DC at present.
Getting back to the patriot act, that act only reinstated polic...
Mexico has claimed that if we use the military on the borders we will become a military state yet they use their military to secure their borders. We are in dangerous times that require drastic measures. Do I trust Obama with this power...hell no but he is a fluke and there can be powers within to control his chaotic behaviour, we unfortunately have chaos all over DC at present.
Getting back to the patriot act, that act only reinstated policies that were practiced all the way up to the time that human rights acts took hold in this country and not sure how old you are but I never felt infringements on my rights nor did my parents. TV is responsible for 99% of peoples decisions in this country, we never watched more than 20 minutes of TV twice a week at most. We used to think and form our own interpretations. Liberals keep using the slogan that we want to return to the old ways, I say sure...people respected people back then and weren't caught up dictating how the rest had to live.
Bush knew that in order to beat Kerry, he needed a decisive military win somewhere. This is why Iraq was attacked. Bush knew that if he could topple the Baath Party, he'd have his "cred" back with the GOP voting base. So the CIA concocted fake evidence of nuclear research going on in Iraq to "justify" the invasion. But what nobody thought about at the time was that Iraq only constructed one nuclear research facility, which was taken out in an Israeli airstrike prior to 2003. It was impossible for Iraq to have been conducting nuclear research in 2003.
So, who voted to give George Bush a 2nd term as president? The sad and sick answer is that GWB did by getting the CIA to p...
Bush knew that in order to beat Kerry, he needed a decisive military win somewhere. This is why Iraq was attacked. Bush knew that if he could topple the Baath Party, he'd have his "cred" back with the GOP voting base. So the CIA concocted fake evidence of nuclear research going on in Iraq to "justify" the invasion. But what nobody thought about at the time was that Iraq only constructed one nuclear research facility, which was taken out in an Israeli airstrike prior to 2003. It was impossible for Iraq to have been conducting nuclear research in 2003.
So, who voted to give George Bush a 2nd term as president? The sad and sick answer is that GWB did by getting the CIA to produce phony evidence of Iraqi violations of the 1991 UN Peace Accord signed after the Iraqi's surrendered the first time (after invading Kuwait). The American public fell for it hook, line, and sinker, and gave Bush a second term.
This is called "the tail wagging the dog."
And how in the f*****g hell could the TPM have "destroyed the United States." At present it has absolutely no power. TPM saturation in Congress is only 2%. There are no TPM members in the Administration. I'm not aware of any TPM judges.
The truth is that progressives, and the centrist toadies in the GOP that made "deals" with them, destroyed the United States. The mass illegal usurpation of state and indivdual powers by the federal government, in violation of the Tenth Amendment, is the result of 120 years of progressivism. And this very usurpation is why we are drowning in federal debt (all the stolen powers have to be funded and enforced). Even after over 100 years of MISERABLE FAILURE, you still can't admit that the liberal/moderate alliance is the sole cause of our current nightmares. You wouldn't even give true constitutional conservatives a fair chance to fix the mess your "heroes" like FDR and Wilson created.
The fact that Obama wants to completely control the Internet to the point where he was willing to give our rights of control to Europe, encouraging people to rat on their neighbor if they disagreed with his crap, adding 15000 more IRS agents, writing policies behind closed doors, giving government unlimited search and aprehension privileges, implementing amnesty to 20 million criminals, reenacting the patriot act and adding to it, how can you sit there and complain about one program that kept us safe and had a statue of limitation on it. Lets not forget Obamas promise to close guantanamo and instead kept it open with a provision of keeping suspected prisoners indefinitely. He calls terrorist murderers on our soil not terrorists but plain criminals in order to keep a fake clean record.
I enjoy my freedom but I don't believe we should tie our national security's hands nor do I think criminals have the same rights we do.
Twice Obama has signed laws strengthening the Patriot Act. I am well aware who was president wen it war first signed.
I also remember who campaigned against the PA, yet did nnothing to weaken it.
http://www.blacklistednews.co...
Holder has an immense amount of baggage, but possibly his biggest issue is probable involvement in the Gunwalker conspiracy. Senator Grassley, in his F&F coverup investigation, even talked about possibly filing negligent homicide charges against all proven conspirators.
Obama has every reason to implement marshal law. He's not polling well, and marshal law would enable him to suspend elections, and in effect, install himself as dictator for who knows how long. The freedom shredding aspects of the NDAA (use of the military against US citizens on US soil), as well as the 4-5 dozen large FEMA camps that are popping up all over the country (possible detention facilities for those who revolt against marshal law), may be indications that Obama already planning to implement marshal law sometime before election time.
Stu