NDAA Bill allows military to indefinitely detain American citizens without due process.

Four Star Generals Demand That Obama Veto/Repeal Anti-Constitutional NDAA Rule aka; The Banker’s Indefinite Detention of Americans.

DECEMBER 26, 2011 BY VOLUBRJOTR 16 COMMENTS

Simply Ignore The Corrupt In Congress And The White House, If They Win ~ The U.S. Constitution Looses All Of Our Legitimacy.

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.”

It then gets into one of the most blatant anti American treasonous provisions in the history of the United States.

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.

Some claim that this provision would merely codify existing practice. Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States — and hand Osama bin Laden an unearned victory long after his well-earned demise.

The generals then go on to cite the fact that most in the military have not even asked for this extreme new power.

Overlooked Language In NDAA (H.R. 1540 & S. 1867)

By: Devvy
December 26, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

The Internet has been literally burning up over the National Defense Authorization Act. Another monstrous bill with language that has produced headlines like: "Obama is going to ship Americans to Gitmo!!!" And, "Americans will be detained indefinitely in secret without due process!!!!" There is this dire prediction:

Storing 7 Days of Food Could Send You to Gitmo Indefinitely

"The real danger lies in the government's definition of what a suspected terrorist is.

"According to Sen Rand Paul (R-KY): “We're talking about American citizens who can be taken from the United States and sent to a camp at Guantanamo Bay and held indefinitely. There are laws on the books right now that characterize who might be a terrorist: someone missing fingers on their hands is a suspect, according to the Department of Justice. Someone who has guns, someone who has ammunition that is weatherproofed, someone who has more than seven days of food in their house can be considered a potential terrorist. If you are suspected because of these activities, do you want the government to have the ability to send you to Guantanamo Bay for indefinite detention?”

"Paul says this is why he and twelve other senators voted against the bill, because they saw the dangerous implications of this provision which was designed to give the military certain powers during the current conflict with al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations."

Not that the gangster administration under the usurper (Obama/Soetoro/Dunham) wouldn't like to try something like that, but please remember Obama/Soetoro does not occupy the White House as he was never eligible to run for president; no one had the "right" to vote for him. Anyone charged under any bill he has signed into law has the full right to go after Obama. As a usurper, Barry has never had a shred of authority to sign any legislation into law.[1]

As for the Department of Justice, the Outlaws in the Congress have the clear authority to impeach Holder today and immediately pass legislation to stop any attempt to round up Americans. With enough votes they can override a veto by the fraud in the White House. They also have the power to pass legislation immediately which nullifies any definitions of a "suspected terrorist" put forth by the corrupt DOJ. Does anyone get constitutional militia yet?

Moving on. The two objectionable sections are: 1031 and 1032 in the Senate bill. Like so many others, I read those sections. There is a great deal of references to the Law of War. These united States of America are not at war with anyone. The last legal war was declared constitutionally by the U.S. Congress on Dec. 11, 1941. Since then, other names have been used to justify ignoring the U.S. Constituion: the Korean Conflict, Viet Nam Era. The illegal, grotesque invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and other "hot spots" are referred to as "overseas contingency operations". Tragically, the American people have sat on their backsides cheering on the slaughter and carnage.

Here is one article about the Senate bill:

Senate Passes Controversial Defense Bill

"According to Firedoglake.com, sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA will:

1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;

(2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and

(3) Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.

"AddictingInfo.org adds:

A provision of S. 1867, or the National Defense Authorization Act bill, written by Senators John McCain and Carl Levin, declares American soil a battlefield and allows the President and all future Chief Executives to order the military to arrest and detain American citizens, innocent or not, without charge or trial. In other words, if this bill passes and the President signs it, OWS protesters or any American could end up arrested and indefinitely locked up by the military without the guaranteed right to due process or a speedy trial."

Okay. Let's go look at the explicit language authorizing the federal government to "indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;"

This is the language of the final Enrolled House bill - page 273:

SEC. 1031. COUNTERTERRORISM OPERATIONAL BRIEFING REQUIREMENT.

(a) BRIEFINGS REQUIRED.—Beginning not later than March 1, 2012, the Secretary of Defense shall provide to the congressional defense committees quarterly briefings outlining Department of Defense counterterrorism operations and related activities involving
special operations forces.

(b) ELEMENTS.—Each briefing under subsection (a) shall include each of the following:

(1) A global update on activity within each geographic combatant command.
(2) An overview of authorities and legal issues including limitations.

Onto page 274:

(3) An outline of interagency activities and initiatives.
(4) Any other matters the Secretary considers appropriate.

Do you read anywhere in that section that authorizes the federal government to indefinitely imprison anyone, etc? I don't.

How about Section 1031 in the final Enrolled Senate bill? Go to page 426:

Subtitle D—Detainee Matters

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

The applicable language begins on page 428:

(e) AUTHORITIES.—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.

I don't read anywhere in that sentence which explicitly states Americans will be rounded up without due process under the Bill of Rights. Do you?

A small number of outlaws in the Congress sent a letter objecting to language in the bill:

"Both the ACLU and Human Rights Watch point out that the final version does nothing to protect American citizens against indefinite detention.

“The sponsors of the bill monkeyed around with a few minor details, but all of the core dangers remain - the bill authorizes the president to order the military to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others found far from any battlefield, even in the United States itself," said the ACLU’s Chris Anders.

“The latest version of the defense authorization bill does nothing to address the bill’s core problems - legislated indefinite detention without charge and the militarization of law enforcement," concurred HRW’s Andrea Prasow.

"Proponent of the legislation Senator Lindsay Graham ironically summed up the nightmare scenario the bill will codify into law - the complete evisceration of all Constitutional protections for U.S. citizens.

“It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next," remarked Graham. "And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don't get a lawyer.’"

Those of us who follow the outlaws out in DC know Lindsay Graham is about as close to sewer waste as you can get. However, I don't seem to be able to find the text in either the final enrolled House or Senate bills that explicitly says U.S. citizens will be indefinitely detained without charge.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I have been reading bills from both the state houses and Congress going on two decades. In both bills (House & Senate), I found language that is plain and specific regarding U.S. citizens. In the original bill (S. 1867) here is the section on page 361 which deals with detainees and U.S. citizens:

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY continues over to page 362:

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS. The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

Unless I'm missing something, that subprovision says detention by military does not apply to U.S. citizens. Words have meaning in the law and that sentence appears to be easily read. That language remains in the final bill (Enrolled):

Again, page 428 begins section 1032, but here is page 430:

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—

10 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

Now over to the House. The full text of the bill passed by the House (Enrolled Bill):

H.R.1540 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
Page 265:

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(e) AUTHORITIES.—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.

At this link is the Congressional Record for December 12, 2011, beginning on page H8356; the day after the final vote on House bill 1540. Scroll down to page 81 (H8436) on your screen and see this under Sec. 1022:

SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN ALQAEDA TERRORISTS.

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

The final enrolled version by the House does contain a Section 1031: Counterterrorism operational briefing requirement. (Begins on page 273). It also contains a Section 1032:

SEC. 1032. NATIONAL SECURITY PLANNING GUIDANCE TO DENY SAFE HAVENS TO AL-QAEDA AND ITS VIOLENT EXTREMIST AFFILIATES.

You can read them, but no where in that final bill do I see any language in those two sections regarding rounding up U.S. citizens and shipping them off to Gitmo or anywhere else.

Again, the language is clear as to who could be detained in both bills. Not U.S. citizens - or did I miss something? If I did and the words 'does not' doesn't mean does not, please let me know. I hate all these massive bills myself and we have to continue to be vigilant 24/7 when it comes to the miscreants in the Outlaw Congress. I don't trust any of them. I just want to make sure we're not getting worked up over some provisions in a bill that attacks our God given rights that doesn't appear to be there.

www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd519.htm