December 01, 2011
(NaturalNews) I don't know if you're all getting this through your heads yet, but Senate Bill 1867 -- the National Defense Authorization Act -- would openly "legalize" the U.S. government's detainment and murder of OWS protesters and the assassination of talk show hosts, bloggers, journalists and anyone who holds a so-called "anti-government" point of view. This is the open and blatant declaration of war against any who do not going along with TSA thugs reaching down your pants, the Goldman Sachs economic takeover of nations, the secret arrest and torture of American citizens, and other acts of outright tyranny waged by an out-of-control government.
Those who have been burying their heads in the sand over the coming police state need to wake up and face the music. That U.S. Senators would knowingly and willfully attempt to pass a bill that legalizes the indefinite detainment, torture and killing of American citizens with no due process whatsoever -- and on American soil! -- is nothing less than a traitorous betrayal of the once-free American people. These are, our founding fathers would have said, acts of war against the People. They reveal the insidious plan to put in place a legal framework to end the Bill of Rights, murder protesters, and overrun America with total police state brutality.
And yet the sheeple are still asleeple
I grow weary of trying to warn the American people to wake up and see what is now right in front of their eyes, so for those who want to read these words themselves -- right in the Senate bill -- you can read it at:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:
And YES, it has now been confirmed that the indefinite detainment and murder provisions do apply to American citizens on the streets of American cities. As Sen. Lindsey Graham explained in plain language on the Senate floor: "...1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland."
That means America, for those of you who are still wondering what "homeland" means. It's a phrase borrowed from Nazi Germany, of course, which is the source of much of this legislation as you might have noticed.
"The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself," says the ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being).
Homefront: The U.S. government's war against the People
If this bill passes and is signed into law, it would mean that America's war machine could then be turned against the American people -- liberal, conservative, libertarian... it doesn't matter. If you question the government, you are suddenly an "enemy combatant" and they will cite this law as the legal justification for putting a bullet in your head, fire-bombing your little protest group, or literally running over you and your buddies with tanks. (And they won't stop like China did in Tiananmen Square when that one brave citizen stood up against tyranny there in 1989.) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6inWKFKv9UA)
The premeditate murder of U.S. protesters (Occupy Wall Street, anyone?) is now being codified into law as the government's "right." Of course, your rights to Free Speech, due process, owning a firearm and other rights are being obliterated in the process. Only the government has "rights" now, didn't you know? The slaves of the nation (i.e. the citizens) are being stripped of all rights, including the right to grow your own food, have a picnic or even buy fresh dairy products from a farmer.
Governments routinely murder far more people than terrorists
Right now, every history teacher in America should be absolutely outraged about all this, as they know what always comes next in the history of nations. Once any government "legalizes" the murder of its own citizens, it is inevitably followed by a mass-murder holocaust-style event.
Tyrants, you see, always like to "legalize" their mass murder before they pull the trigger. Just read the history of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao and others. In every case, they worked diligently to put into place a legal framework for the mass murder that was about to be unleashes on their own citizens. That legal framework looks strikingly similar to Senate Bill 1867, which is about to be passed.
This also brings to mind the mathematical reality that, statistically speaking, governments are orders of magnitude more deadly than terrorists. While terrorists sometimes success in taking out a few thousand people at a time, governments routinely murder tens of MILLIONS of people.
It's called GENOCIDE, and there's a long and well-documented history of how governments have committed genocide year after year, one nation after another:
See more statistics at:
So if the People of America had any courage at all, they would be running the People's road blocks and searching government vehicles for weapons! It is the government agents, after all, who are statistically at the highest risk of engaging in mass murder, and very soon the U.S. Senate looks likely to effectively legalize that mass murder.
At the airports, We the People should be searching the TSA employees and checking them for illegal drugs, child pornography and stolen electronics. At government buildings, We the People should be searching all the government employees who come and go to make sure they don't stage the demolition of their own buildings as a way to blame whatever convenient enemy they want to discredit -- patriots, conservatives, "conspiracy theorists" or what have you.
It's no longer a conspiracy theory, you see, that the government wants to have the legal right to openly murder U.S. citizens right on the streets of America. It's written right into the Senate bill. It's public record. So all those out there still clinging to their pathetic denialist "conspiracy theorists" rants can now clamp shut their pie holes and throw themselves off a cliff or something. It's time to face the reality of the total police state tyranny that's now written in black and white, plain as day.
All of you who are still obsessed with your narrow world view of fashion, dancing with the stars, microwaveable processed food and fake mainstream news are about to be rocked out of your easy chairs and dumped into the cesspool of tyranny at your doorstep. Just know that when they come for you, there will be nobody left to speak for you, because you remained silent as all this was rolled out. And I won't be there for you, either, because I'll be holed up in Texas, handing out emergency food supplies to the local churches and performing emergency medicine procedures on those protesters wounded by U.S. government military attacks -- the ones that are still alive, anyway.
You think none of this is coming? Why would the U.S. Senate write this into law if they didn't intend on using it to murder Americans? Maybe you need to clear the cobwebs out of your head and open your eyes to what's really happening right now in the U.S. Senate.
Read between the lines, folks. It's not that difficult to get the full picture here. The very idea that the U.S. Senate is even considering such a law to "legalize" the detainment and murder of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil by U.S. troops is, all by itself, a complete and utter crime against the American people.
The U.S. Senate is about to declare WAR on the American people. And I don't mean that metaphorically. They are trying to make this a military war where anyone who opposes the U.S. government -- even if they have nothing at all to do with "terrorism" -- is now a fair game target for precision bombings, assassinations and heavy military armor (i.e. tanks rolling down your driveway).
New Bill Authorizes Rendition of American Citizens Living within the United States to Other Countries for Torture
December 21, 2011
Top experts – including the sponsors of the bill – say that the newly-passed National Defense Authorization Act authorizes indefinite detention of Americans living within the United States.
Top legal experts point out that the government claims the right to assassinate American citizens on U.S. soil without any charges, trial or other constitutional protection.
I noted last month that Congress was considering repealing prohibitions against torture. (I wrote to attorneys at the ACLU, but haven’t received word yet on whether such a provision has been enacted).
However, Mother Jones notes today that Congress has explicitly authorized rendition, allowing American Citizens on U.S. soil to be sent to other countries which do torture:
Happy New Year: Obama Signs NDAA, Indefinite Detention Now Law of the Land
President signs authorization to indefinitely detain, torture and deny trial to Americans; grants power to all future presidents.
Aaron Dykes & Alex Jones
January 1, 2012
Indeed it is a new day. Ushering in the New Year, President Obama signed legislation that helps to further destroy the principles the nation was founded upon.
President Obama, who pledged to veto the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), has now signed it. Of course, his promise was only for public consumption. After all, lying to your enemy is what invading corporate takeover armies do. It was the Obama administration all along that demanded the indefinite detention provisions be addedwhile at the same time telling the American people he was fighting to protect their rights. This is treason on parade, in your face all out despotism– that is, for those paying any attention!
In this video is Alex Jones’ reaction to the bill and Obama’s accompanying signing statement:
As the Associated Press reports, the President signed the bill on Saturday “despite having ‘serious reservations’ about provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”
However, those reservations have nothing to do with the rights of the people under the Constitution and Bill of Rights that he swore to protect– rather, his reservations dealt with changes that “challenged the president’s terrorism-fighting ability.” He reportedly accepted the legislation only after such impedance was removed.
Instead, it was a deceptive maneuver to appear wary of such powers when the White House demanded it all along. In fact, Obama’s veto threat was always about that issue– the language over Section 1022 and NOT the authorization for the indefinite detention of Americans in Section 1021. Rather, it was a debate over “requiring” military protocol on detention rather than leaving the discretion over whether to detain to the executive branch, under the power of the Presidency.
Yesterday, with a friendly note, Obama issued a signing statement that read:
- “Moving forward, my administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.”
Despite positioning himself in the signing statement as cautious towards the rights of the individuals in the nation, the President has just signed into law a provision that threatens the right of every American to due process, and a public trial with a jury. Instead, he has handed over grotesque authority to himself and EVERY President that comes after him, whatever their intentions might be.
Obama’s signing statement later states:
- "Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation."
Even if Obama’s stated intention here is true, it is no guarantee of the attitudes and interpretations of future presidents, or of the intent of their power advisors, many of whom operate the national security shadow network. Instead, it is yet another Constitution-destroying, power-grabbing so-called law.
The ACLU, too, warns about this deception:
Obama’s NDAA Signing Statement Is Meaningless
Administration itself demanded power to detain American citizens without trial
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Monday, January 2, 2012
Barack Obama’s signing statement that was added to the passage of the NDAA bill in an effort to dampen concerns over the ‘indefinite detention’ provision of the bill is smoke and mirrors for a number of reasons – prime amongst them the fact that it was the White House itself – not lawmakers – who demanded Section 1031 be expanded to empower the government to detain U.S. citizens without trial.
On first reading, Obama’s signing statement appears to assuage fears that American citizens could be targeted for arrest and detention without trial.
“My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens … Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation,” wrote Obama.
However, the statement is meaningless for a number of reasons.
Firstly, even if Obama manages to fulfil one of the rare occasions on which he keeps his word, this does nothing to stop future administrations from exercising the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial.
Secondly, the Obama administration is already carrying out even more egregious measures than those supposedly authorized within the NDAA, by targeting American citizens worldwide for state-sponsored assassination with no legal process whatsoever.
Thirdly, Obama has reversed almost every single promise he made to get elected – his word is no good. Given the right civil emergency, Obama could turn to indefinite detention of citizens without hesitation.
Crucially, Obama’s promise that he will not use the law to detain Americans without trial is completely hollow – because it was his administration that demanded the power to do so in the first place.
As the bill’s co-sponsor Senator Carl Levin said during a speech on the floor last month, it was the Obama administration that demanded the removal of language that would have precluded Americans from being subject to indefinite detention.
“The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section,” said Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
“It was the administration that asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee…we removed it at the request of the administration,” said Levin, emphasizing, “It was the administration which asked us to remove the very language the absence of which is now objected to.”
If the Obama administration is so opposed to the idea of detaining Americans without trial, why did they push for such powers to be included in the final version of the National Defense Authorization Act?
It’s also necessary to highlight the fact that just because this bill has been passed into law, that shouldn’t bestow any kind of legitimacy to it given that indefinite detention is anathema to the bill of rights and the constitution. It was once a law that black people were not human – that doesn’t mean it’s right or should be given credence.
Myth busted: Yes, the NDAA does apply to Americans, and here’s the text that says so
Monday, January 2, 2012
In the aftermath of the signing of the NDAA by the traitorous President Obama, some citizens remain completely hoodwinked by the language of the bill, running around the internet screaming that the law “does not apply to American citizens.”
This is, naturally, part of the side effect of having such a dumbed-down education system where people can’t even parse the English language anymore. If you read the bill and understand what it says, it clearly offers absolutely no protections of U.S. citizens. In fact, it affirms that Americans are subjected to indefinite detainment under “existing authorities.”
Let’s parse it intelligently, shall we?
First off, the offending section of the bill that used to be called 1031 was moved to 1021. Here is the title:
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.
The two relevant sections to consider are titled and stated as follows:
(d) CONSTRUCTION. — Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
By PARSING the language here, we must split it into two sentences based on the “or” operator. This statement essentially means:
• Nothing in this section is intended to LIMIT the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
• Nothing in this section is intended to EXPAND the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
In other words, this section places no limits whatsoever of the “authority of the President” to use military force (against American citizens). Keep that in mind as you read the next section:
(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.
This section “e” is the section that the hoodwinked people on the internet are running around saying “protects American citizens” from the NDAA. But where do they dream up such language? If you read section (e) again, you’ll discover it says nothing whatsoever about protecting American citizens from the NDAA. Instead, here’s what it really says when parsed into two sentences based on the “or” operator:
• Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing LAW 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.
• Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing 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.
In other words, section (e) only says that it does notalter“existing authorities” relating to the detention of US citizens.
So to answer the question about whether this affects U.S. citizens, you have to understand “existing authorities.”
What are those “existing authorities?”
Existing authorities already allow indefinite detainment and the killing of American citizens
As everyone who studies history well knows, the Patriot Act already establishes an “existing authority” that anyone suspected of being involved in terrorist-related activities can be arrested and detained without trial. If you don’t believe me, just Google it yourself. This is not a debated issue; it’s widely recognized.
Furthermore, President Obama already insists that he has the authority to kill American citizens merely by decree! As Reuters reported on October 5, 2011, a “secret panel” of government officials (who report to the President) can decide to place an American citizen on a “kill list” and then murder that person, without trial, without due process, and without even being arrested. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-cia-killlist-idUSTRE79475C20111005)
Importantly, as Reuters reports, “Two principal legal theories were advanced [in support of the kill list authority] — first, that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001.”
Are you getting this yet? So the authority ALREADY exists for the President to order the killing of an American citizen. All that is required is that they be suspected of being involved in terrorism in any way, and not a shred of evidence is required by the government to support that. There is no trial, no arraignment, no evidence and not even a hearing. You are simply accused and then disappeared.
Thus, the authority already exists, you see, and the NDAA openly states that “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing AUTHORITIES…”
In other words, the NDAA does nothing to protect American citizens, and it piggy-backs on the Patriot Act as well as Obama’s executive “kill list” justifications to essentially place all Americans in the crosshairs of government murderers or military action.
Rep. Justin Amash, a Congressman from Michigan, explains:
Final Curtain: Obama Signs Indefinite Detention of Citizens Into Law As Final Act of 2011
January 3, 2012
President Barack Obama rang in the New Year by signing the NDAA law with its provision allowing him to indefinitely detain citizens. It was a symbolic moment to say the least. With Americans distracted with drinking and celebrating, Obama signed one of the greatest rollbacks of civil liberties in the history of our country . . . and citizens partied only blissfully into the New Year.
Ironically, in addition to breaking his promise not to sign the law, Obama broke his promise on signing statements and attached a statement that he really does not want to detain citizens indefinitely.
Obama insisted that he signed the bill simply to keep funding for the troops. It was a continuation of the dishonest treatment of the issue by the White House since the law first came to light. As discussed earlier, the White House told citizens that the President would not sign the NDAA because of the provision. That spin ended after sponsor Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) went to the floor and disclosed that it was the White House and insisted that there be no exception for citizens in the indefinite detention provision.
The latest claim is even more insulting. You do not “support our troops” by denying the principles for which they are fighting. They are not fighting to consolidate authoritarian powers in the President. The “American way of life” is defined by our Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights. Moreover, the insistence that you do not intend to use authoritarian powers does not alter the fact that you just signed an authoritarian measure. It is not the use but the right to use such powers that defines authoritarian systems.
The almost complete failure of the mainstream media to cover this issue is shocking. Many reporters have bought into the spin of the Obama Administration as they did the spin over torture by the Bush Administration. Even today reporters refuse to call waterboarding torture despite the long line of cases and experts defining waterboarding as torture for decades. On the NDAA, reporters continue to mouth the claim that this law only codifies what is already the law. That is not true. The Administration has fought any challenges to indefinite detention to prevent a true court review. Moreover, most experts agree that such indefinite detention of citizens violates the Constitution.
There are also those who continue the long-standing effort to excuse Obama’s horrific record on civil liberties by either blaming others or the times. One successful myth is that there is an exception for citizens. The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is facially ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality. The Administration and Democratic members are in full spin — using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.
Obama could have refused to sign the bill and the Congress would have rushed to fund the troops. Instead, as confirmed by Sen. Levin, the White House conducted a misinformation campaign to secure this power while portraying Obama as some type of reluctant absolute ruler, or as Obama maintains a reluctant president with dictatorial powers.
Most Democratic members joined their Republican colleagues in voting for this unAmerican measure. Some Montana citizens are moving to force the removal of these members who they insist betrayed their oaths of office and their constituents. Most citizens however are continuing to treat the matter as a distraction from the holiday cheer.
For civil libertarians, the NDAA is our Mayan moment. 2012 is when the nation embraced authoritarian powers with little more than a pause between rounds of drinks.
Totalitarianism: The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Latest Chapter In the Road towards "Police State USA"
by Sherwood Ross
January 11, 2012
"I believe," warned James Madison in a speech to the Virginia Convention on June 16, 1788, "there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
Surely, this is the story behind the New Year's Eve, 2011, signing by President Obama of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). While they were merry-making and tootling horns, NDAA stripped Americans of the last vestiges of their liberties. Now that President Obama can order the military to arrest and imprison you indefinitely on suspicion without trial, your First Amendment rights of speech, press, assembly, and petition have no meaning. Who are you going to assemble with from your jail cell?
NDAA is only the most recent chapter in a creeping totalitarian horror story going back decades. President Harry Truman vetoed the Internal Security Act of 1950 that codified indefinite detention without trial but his veto was overturned by Congress. Truman called the Act "the greatest danger to freedom of speech, press, and assembly since the Alien and Sedition Laws of 1798, a "mockery of the Bill of Rights" and a "long step toward totalitarianism."
That Act, a.k.a. the McCarran-Walter Act, was aimed at the Communist Party of the United States and authorized incarceration of those who would "probably engage in espionage or sabotage." At the time it would have been difficult to think of any example of any known U.S. Communist Party member anywhere engaging in sabotage. By contrast, it was about the same time the CIA was getting off to a jump start at overthrowing foreign governments by force and violence.
Under the Act, prominent individuals considered subversive were barred entry to the United States, limiting the free speech of American citizens. Among them: Argentine novelist Julio Cortazar, Colombian novelist Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Chilean poet Pablo Neruda, and British novelist Graham Greene, Wikipedia recalls.
Totalitarianism continued its creep despite the objections of Senator George McGovern of South Dakota in 1970, who vainly blasted the "no knock" ordinance Congress pressed down upon that occupied territory known as the District of Columbia. This law allowed police to bust into any dwelling without a court order. McGovern referred to it as the Big Brother Act, pointing out that "your home is no longer your castle and your liberties are no longer your own." That was but one small foretaste of today's police state powers.
In 1978, President Jimmy Carter signed into law the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that violated the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It set up the FISA Court, and later the FISA Court of Review, true "Star Chambers" that international law Professor Francis Boyle of the University of Illinois says "are nothing more than rubber stamps for government requests for unconstitutional surveillance on U.S. citizens."
"With the FISA Amendments Act approved by Obama," Boyle continues, "there is nothing left of the Fourth Amendment that protects 'The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.' I do not understand how any self-respecting U.S. Federal Judge can serve on the FISA Court and the FISA Court of Review and actively participate in the interment of the Fourth Amendment."
According to Boyle, "After the "draconian Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) passed by Congress in 1996 in reaction to the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, there was no legitimate law enforcement need for the Patriot Act." Among other things, the AEDPA drastically limited the right of inmates to appeal their death sentences.
Enactment of the Patriot Act of 2003, rushed through Congress after 9/11 and since renewed at leisure, opened the spillways of totalitarianism to flood an entire nation. "From the gagging of our nation's librarians under the national security letter statute to the gutting of time-honored surveillance laws, the Patriot Act has been disastrous for Americans' rights," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU's Washington office.
"In the panic following the events of 9/11, our nation's lawmakers hastily expanded the government's authority to a dangerous level and opened a Pandora's box of surveillance," she cautioned in a statement on ACLU's web site.
Amazingly, there has been scant public outcry condemning these government actions. Few Americans objected when President Obama in March, 2011, by executive order decreed Guantanamo detainees could be held indefinitely---a policy that NDAA now applies to American citizens under the NDAA.
"No president," said the ACLU, "should have the power to declare the entire globe a war zone and then seize and detain civilian terrorism suspects anywhere in the world---including within the United States---and to hold them forever without charge or trial."
"By signing this defense spending bill (NDAA), President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. "In the past, Obama has lauded the importance of being on the right side of history, but today he is definitely on the wrong side."
"This amounts to the repeal of the U.S. Constitution," Roth said, adding, "We have a Republican Party that is a Gestapo Party---to arrest American citizens and put them in concentration camps." (Author's note: NDAA could not have passed without the strong support of Democratic lawmakers.)
Roth goes on to say: