What is Necessary For National Defense, And For Exactly Whose Defense

On 31 December 2011, President Obama silently signed an act into law.

This act was named the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA.

There was much furor over this act becoming law, for a number of reasons, which I will write about here, and about the implications of those governing sections of this act.

Let me first state that the NDAA for 2012, unlike other Defense Spending Acts passed in years prior, which were used to simply supply the military of the United States with the funds needed to operate, the current NDAA has been written to be much more far-reaching, to include executive branch limitations on where and how to combat terrorism, conditions on Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, and detentions of individuals from within the United States, and the fundings for these entities and practices.

The original version which passed the House of Representatives was written to bind the executive branch from moving Guantanamo by removing all funding for doing so. The detainees there would be left there indefinitely. The Senate version was no better.

Now, President Obama did not like having his executive powers limited (see Title XII) and he threatened a veto of the bill, but the reconciled version, struck in committee, did allow more powers to the executive regarding these things.

Obama was then agreeable to passing the act one the powers of the executive were not so restrained.

Regardless, it was written (see Sec. 1021 and Sec. 1022) that individuals can be held indefinitely (or until the “War On Terrorism” has ended, which according to Senator John McCain, will be “never”).

Now, we suppose that all of this has nothing to do with you and me, correct?

That assumption is very unfortunately dead wrong.

Both versions, and the committee version which was passed by Obama, which is the actual law, allow for indefinite detentions or military tribunals of ANYONE.

Let me make that perfectly clear. ANYONE. Any individual.

This includes United States Citizens, living in the United States, since this country is a front of the War On Terrorism.

The remedy is indefinite detention.

This a completely arbitrary and includes classes of individuals which, according to the law, are now described as “any person who has committed a belligerent act” (see Sec. 1021(b)2).

So, if I am walking down the street, say quickly, and pushing through a crowd, am I being “belligerent”?

If I write this, am I being “belligerent”?

If I am, I can now be held indefinitely, without trial or Habeas Corpus, in a military prison or even in Guantanamo Bay.

This is certainly NOT what the Founding Fathers intended.

Furthermore, the law allows for the executive branch to assert a power to identify any particular individual and hold them indefinitely (see Sec. 1022(a)4).

You can be kidnapped by the military off the streets and be held and never heard from again. No trial. No jury. No Habeas Corpus.

If you are lucky, you might get a military trial. You might even get a regular trial.

It is not up to you. You might get deported to face trial in your home country, or maybe not (see Sec. 1022(a)3). This is the way the NDAA has been written. Please read it.

Do that here http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf or here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012

Thank you.

Now, I would like to restate that Obama only had a problem that the powers of the executive branch were limited, and one those powers were given, Obama figured the NDAA was a good thing that he wished to sign in secret on 31 December 2011.

No ceremony, no 15 pens given out, no press.

I have an idea on how to define “belligerency”.

I think that it was a clear act of belligerency against the United States that any act, such as the NDAA, has been passed, and I do hold as “belligerents” those who had any part in passing the NDAA for 2012.

If they make their bed, they must lie in it.

Yes, the fact of the passage of the 2012 NDAA is, in itself, an act of belligerency against the United States, and any individual who took part in its passage and enactment into law should be subject to its terms.

This would include the 93 Senators, the 322 members of the House Of Representatives and President Obama.

Their punishment for this act of belligerency shall be indefinite detention within the confines of the US base in Cuba, named Guantanamo Bay, D-4.

Once they are gone, We The People should set about to be repealing this indescribable repugnancy of an act which should never have seen the light of day.

There are simply too many of us, even for the FEMA camps.

More importantly, this is construed as an act for “National Defense”.

The question really is “whose defense, from whom and against whom exactly?”. I think that this act smacks of being an enactment of defense of the US Government from its own people.

We The People should not allow this, and if necessary, take up arms to resist the obvious coming of the Federal Police State, enacted under our noses, by “law”, in our own nation.

Let us now join together and take the ownership back for ourselves from those who falsely govern out of fear.

With Love, We Will Be Our Own Sovereigns!

Advertisements

Comments Off on What is Necessary For National Defense, And For Exactly Whose Defense

Filed under General, Government Intrusion

Comments are closed.