Barbara H. Peterson

Farm Wars

The question of the day is, does the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, nicknamed the Indefinite Detention Bill, actually call for the arrest and indefinite detention of American citizens on American soil? According to Devvy Kidd, it doesn’t: 

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.

(Devvy Kidd)

I agree. At first glance, it seems that there is a specific clause which eliminates American citizens from the provisions of the bill. However, consider the following bill that Joe Lieberman and Charles Dent are trying to get through called the Enemy Expatriation Act:

S 1698 A bill to add engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality.

Bill Text:

A BILL

To add engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Enemy Expatriation Act’.

SEC. 2. LOSS OF NATIONALITY.

(a) In General- Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481) is amended–

(1) in subsection (a)–

(A) in each of paragraphs (1) through (6), by striking ‘or’ at the end;

(B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘; or’; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

(8) engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

(c) For purposes of this section, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war.’.

(b) Technical Amendment- Section 351(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1483(a)) is amended by striking ‘(6) and (7)’ and inserting ‘(6), (7), and (8)’.

Here is a House version link sponsored by Charles Dent.

Who can be deemed as “engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the United States? You tell me. In 2009, USA Today reported that the government’s “Terrorist Watch List” had no specific rules “for who goes on the list, [and] it’s too bloated to be effective, says Tim Sparapani, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union.” No specific rules for who goes on the list? What? Oh, okay, I get it. Suspicion. That’s all it takes. Boom, on the list you go.

(HOMELAND SECURITY NEWSWIRE) Now a single tip about a terror link will be enough for inclusion in the watch list for U.S. security officials, who have also evolved a quicker system to share the database of potential terrorists among screening agencies.

The master watch list of individuals with suspected links to terrorism is used to screen people seeking to obtain a visa, cross a U.S. border, or board a plane in or destined for the United States. Officials say they have made it easier to add individuals’ names to the watch list and improved the government’s ability to thwart terrorist attacks, the Washington Post reported. (Federal Jack)

So, who is immune from being labeled a potential terrorist? Only the guys at the top. The ones who are setting up the lists. The ones putting the labels on us. And just how far a leap would it take for this list to lead to accusations, expatriation and indefinite detention for American citizens on American soil?

I’m a RACIST for criticizing Obama. I’m a TERRORIST because I’m not afraid to stand up for what’s right. I’m a LIBERAL for supporting the Constitution. I’m a TROUBLEMAKER for asking unanswered questions. I’m a TRAITOR for blowing the whistle on my corrupt government. I’m a CONSPIRACY THEORIST for presenting documented facts. I’m a TROLL for uploading news, videos, quotes and U.S. atrocities. I’m ANTI-AMERICAN for supporting Constitutionalists. Yep, GUILTY! (Guido)

Connecting the Dots

Are you beginning to get the picture? The Indefinite Detention bill does not have to include a specific provision for indefinite detention of American citizens for it to happen. All that needs to happen is for the Enemy Expatriation Act to go through. Remember what Dirty Harry Reid did to get the Food Safety travesty passed? If not, I’ll remind you:

Then, on the floor of the Senate in the late afternoon, early evening of Sunday, December 19, Senator Reid called the Recycling bill for a vote and there was no objection from the two other Senators who were on the floor. So by unanimous consent HR 2751 was passed. Then Senator Reid moved for reconsideration with the vote to be tabled. This was granted by the same unanimous consent because there was no other Senator on the floor. Then Senator Reid offered without objection amendment number 4890 which substituted S. 510 the Food Safety Bill for the Recycling Bill. Without objection, then the amendment was passed and the Food Safety Bill had been substituted for the Recycling Bill. Reid moved that the bill be read for the third time and asked for the question. Without objection, the bill passed, and the Food Safety Bill was on the way back to the House.” (Fred Kelly Grant)

If history is any indicator, should we expect the provisions of the Enemy Expatriation Act to end up in another bill, and passed by unanimous consent in a one person vote like dirty Harry Reid did? I wouldn’t doubt it for a minute. And if it does, how convenient that these expatriated American “terrorists” can then be subject to Indefinite Detention on American soil.

Tyranny is being implemented in increments, one step at a time, making it difficult to piece together at the time it is happening. One piece of legislation here, another there – links of a chain that when added together on down the road, form the entire unit.

As with everything, a closer look is needed. Add these two bills together – the National Defense Authorization Act and the Enemy Expatriation Act – and American citizens can be stripped of their citizenship, which allows them to fall under the indefinite detention clause. A two-part mix.

© 2011 Barbara H. Peterson

Print Friendly
EmailFacebookTwitterPinterestRedditStumbleUponGoogle+DiggLinkedIn

Tags: , , , , , ,

36 Responses to “Oppose Government, Lose Citizenship, Go Straight to Gitmo”

  1. Thanks, Richard! Will share far and wide.

  2. richard tinker says:

    This is a link to the report of door to door food storage inquiries.

    http://oathkeepers.org/oath/20.....-facility/

    Confirming link
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/?s=cannery

  3. Fred says:

    Love the statement ¨Tyranny is being implemented in increments, one step at a time, making it difficult to piece together at the time it is happening. One piece of legislation here, another there – links of a chain that when added together on down the road, form the entire unit.¨

    That’s how the financial crisis occurred – the bits were put in place one by one – lobbying, pliant regulators, ratings agencies, political contributions, revolving door job swaps, etc etc and the ruling classes milked us all of trillions. Now we all know that the system is rotten, but where to start hacking away at the rot? That’s why the occupy movement seems to be incoherent

  4. This article is NOT about any race, religion, or ethnicity. Race baiting comments will be removed. Please, get out of that trap. It is one set up by the ruling cabal that is intended to pit us against each other, and I REFUSE to participate.

  5. Jim,

    Of course he warned about it. Geez… Oh, okay, I’ll sign it, but I really don’t want to because of the vague wording…….. hehehehe….. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, plans are being set in motion to implement all of the power that those very same words allow. We are in for it, there’s no doubt about that. It’s like watching a slow motion train wreck. Thanks, Jim.

  6. Jim Barlucci says:

    Barbara,

    I want to add one final remark in an effort to link sec. 1021 in HR 1540 with sec. 1031 in S. 1867. Sec. 1031 basically codifies the president’s often presumed authority to detain anyone he wishes while the country is at war. So does sec. 1021. Now, read what Rep. Amash, one of the most virulent opponents of preventive detention in the House, has to say about sec. 1021:

    “The key to subsection 1021(e) is its claim that sec. 1021 does not ‘affect existing law or authorities’ relating to the detention of persons arrested on U.S. soil. If the President’s expansive view of his own power were in statute, that statement would be true. Instead, the section codifies the President’s view as if it had always existed, authorizing detention of ‘persons’ regardless of citizenship or where they are arrested. It then disingenuously says the bill doesn’t change that view.”

    Amash’s acute observation helps to explain the true nature of the controversy over sec. 1031 in S. 1867, since Sen. Levin and his Armed Services crew hadn’t yet signed on to this ubber-view of presidential power and had actually added an exemption for U.S. citizens in the original version. The reason for the threat of a presidential veto is thus explained. The House version, HR 1540, had already passed; the Senate version, S. 1867, had not. The Obama administration therefore had time to pressure Levin into changing the original wording of his bill before final passage. Needless to say, Levin readily obliged. Curiously, Obama warned about the vague and general nature of the final bill’s language. But, of course, that’s exactly what he wanted: language that would give him full dictatorial powers anytime he wanted to use them.

    This is so much fun, isn’t it?

  7. WTF??? Yeah, shoulda known, eh? Barry Soetoro, or however you spell it, Imposter in Chief, would do something like that. Here’s the link:

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/ob.....izens.html

  8. Jim Barlucci says:

    Barbara,

    I want to add to my last post and include an important correction. Apparently, the Obama administration asked that the U.S citizen exemption already in Sec. 1031 of the Senate bill be removed, not inclusive language added that could result in the indefinite detention of American citizens. Below are Sen. Carl Levin’s own words on the matter (Levin currently chairs The Senate Armed Services Committee and is the sponsor of S. 1867):

    “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 Levine, emphasizing, “It was the administration which asked us to remove the very language the absence of which is now objected to.”

    From Infowars.com: “Obama Administration Demanded Power To Indefinitely Detain U.S. Citizens,” by Joseph Watson, 12/12/11

  9. Mark,

    You have provided an in-depth analysis, and I will be going through it. Thank you so much!

  10. On December 27, 2011, I sent the following email (since revised) to Devvy and requested a response. As of January 2012, Devvy refuses to respond. The evidentiary links do not appear in this post:

    First, you confused section 1021 of the final enrolled House Bill 1540 with section 1031. Section 1021 allows the U.S. military to indefinitely imprison Americans captured on American soil without trial, section 1031 of the final Enrolled House bill covers a different issue entirely. The section that authorizes the U.S. military to indefinitely imprison Americans captured on American soil without trial, appears under section 1021 (a-c), at page 265:

    (a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

    (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

    (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

    (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR. The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

    (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

    A “covered person” is anyone who “substantially supported” or committed a “belligerent act . . . in aid of” forces “associated” with certain terrorists under 1021 (b) (2).

    Thus, section 1021 expressly empowers the “Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons . . . pending disposition under the law of war. . . . without trial . . .”

    And what exactly is “substantial support” or “belligerent act . . . in aid of” forces “associated” with certain terrorists? An anti-war protest? An anti-war protest that results in violence? An anti-war protest unknowingly joined by protestors “associated” with certain terrorists? Does not an anti-war protest “aid” the forces “associated” with certain terrorists by virtue of their shared objective: an end to the war? Does donation to a charity that provided humanitarian assistance to forces “associated” with certain terrorists, subject the donor to indefinite detention by the armed forces of the United State . . . pending disposition under the law of war. . . . without trial . . .”?

    Second, while it is true that neither S. 1867 nor H.B. 1540 “explicitly” require the indefinite military detainment of Americans captured on American soil without trial, the law distinguishes between mandatory (“shall”) and permissible (“may”) acts; the former is mandatory, the latter discretionary. Section 1022 (a) (1) provides that “the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2),” while section 1022 (b) provides that “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”

    Because the Obama administration is not required to indefinitely detain Americans captured on American soil, does not preclude said detentions. However, if the Obama administration enforces a policy of killing American citizens without presenting any evidence to the public, surely the Obama administration will subject Americans captured on American soil to indefinite military detainment without trial.

    If S. 1867 does not “authorize the U.S. military to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely without any charges or trial,” why did the Obama White House pressure Congress to remove language from the bill that specifical¬ly precluded Americans captured on American soil from the application of § 1031?

    Moreover, if S. 1867 does not “authorize the U.S. military to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely without any charges or trial,” why did the Senate expressly reject an amendment to S. 1867 that specifically precluded the indefinite detention of American citizens by the military without trial.

    S. Amend. 1126, amended S. 1867 by inserting:

    (e) Applicability to Citizens.–The authority described in this section for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain a person does not include the authority to detain a citizen of the United States without trial until the end of the hostilities. (Boldness added.) See Page: S7745.

    Notably, S. Amend. 1126, never prohibited the detainment of Americans captured on American soil by the military, it only prohibited the detainment of Americans captured on American soil by the military without trial.

    Thus, the Senate not only refused to protect Americans captured on American soil from indefinite detention by the military, but refused to afford these same Americans a trial.

    Worse, the Senate only narrowly defeated (41-59) Senate Amendment 1274 that allowed the indefinite detainment of Americans captured on American soil by the military, after a military tribunal deemed the accused not guilty (otherwise known as “post-acquittal detainment”). Senate Amendment 1274 provided:

    (5) Notwithstanding disposition [post-trial] under paragraph (2) or (3), further detention under the law of war until the end of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. See Page: S7852.

    Third, section 1021 (e) of H.B. 1540 (at page 265), does nothing to protect Americans captured on American soil from indefinite detention by the military without trial. Section 1021 (e) requires that:

    (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.

    In section 1021 (e), the operative phrase is “existing authority” because the Bush administration’s imprisonment of Jose Padilla, already provides “existing authority” for the indefinite detention of Americans captured on American soil by the military without trial. Moreover, the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit explicitly approved Padilla’s detention; a decision that the Supreme Court cowardly refused to hear after the Bush administration charged Padilla with crimes in a civilian court to avoid reversal.

  11. Jim Barlucci says:

    Barbara,

    Just a few concluding remarks on this issue. The struggle over indefinite detention was fought in the Senate, not the House, not that HR 1540 was any less important than S. 1867. It was the closeness of the vote in the Senate and the fact that Democrats were expected by some to vote it down that created much of the drama in the days leading up to a vote (or votes) on the final legislation. Several amendments were proposed by Udall, Paul and, amazingly, Feinstein to block inclusion of Americans in the final draft. All failed. Later we learned that S. 1867 sponsor Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan stated that it the Obama administration had requested that language mandating the inclusion of Americans in the bill be added. Quite unexpectedly, perhaps, the wording eventually included seems to be applicable to everyone. What it does, in fact, is codify the once moot authority of the president to order the military to detain indefinitely anyone he wishes while the nation is at war. Of course, the nation is almost always at war. Ergo you and I could be detained at any time for any apparent indiscretion committed as alleged “associated forces” acting in support of the enemy. That’s what fascist governments do: contrive laws that arbitrarily punish free speech and its practitioners while simultaneously giving free rein to the crimes they perpetrate at home and abroad. I lived through the politically violent 60s and early 70s as a young adult and I’m amazed at how radically different civil protest is construed today by the ruling elite. It seems that an active effort, quite insidious in nature, is being waged by these criminals to dismantle our constitutional republic.

  12. David Wallace says:

    This is great, I like it. Forget all the hassle and trial and error of trying to rescind all contracts locking you into the US Inc.! Now they will cancel the contracts for you and since they are NOT the lawful USA authority they have no affect on your USA Citizenship.

    So count me in and cancel my corporate contracts! :D

  13. dogismyth,

    I do not appreciate being threatened because I could not get your comment up when you thought it should be. Threaten me again and get bounced. That’s a promise. You said the following when you didn’t see your first comment right away:

    Down with farmwars.info

    where’s my comment? censorship? And you’re worried about the government?

    Obviously, this is another shill site that censors the truth and only hopes to dissuade you through intimidation, lies and deceit.

    Please return my comment…or accept the judgement.

    Sounds like YOU are the one DOING the INTIMIDATION not me.

  14. Jim, that makes sense. Also, Jeff, this makes sense too:

    “the requirement of military detention does not apply to U.S. citizens, but it does not exclude U.S. citizens from the authority”

    It would seem that the Enemy Expatriation Act might have been there just in case they couldn’t get the verbiage they wanted in the NDAA. A possibility… Or maybe another agenda is afoot as well. We know the endgame. Now it’s a matter of figuring out the strategy.

  15. Jim Barlucci says:

    Barbara,
    Devvy Kidd doesn’t know what she is talking about. The implicit authority to detain Americans is in S.1867 sec. 1031, which is incorporated in the final version of the bill. In your case, ultimate disposition would probably be as a a member of an associated group (the farming community, perhaps?). You would be detained indefinitely, possibly in a foreign land like Saudi Arabia where you’d likely face enhanced interrogation. Sorry. Check it out below:

    Subtitle D—Detainee Matters
    16 SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED
    17 FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN
    18 COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION
    FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
    20 (a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority
    of the President to use all necessary and appropriate
    22 force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military
    23 Force (Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the
    24 Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition
    under the law of war.
    3 (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under
    4 this section is any person as follows:
    5 (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed,
    or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred
    7 on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible
    for those attacks.
    9 (2) A person who was a part of or substantially
    10 supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces
    11 that are engaged in hostilities against the United
    12 States or its coalition partners, including any person
    13 who has committed a belligerent act or has directly
    14 supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
    15 forces.
    16 (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described
    18 in subsection (a) may include the following:
    19 (1) Detention under the law of war without
    20 trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the
    21 Authorization for Use of Military Force.
    22 (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United
    23 States Code (as amended by the Military Commission
    Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–84). (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or
    competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
    (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the
    person’s country of origin, any other foreign country,
    or any other foreign entity.

  16. john doh says:

    This is nothing more then a front for the government to cover up covert for hire militia/cia agents hired to provoke war, uprisings and riots and anything they want. How? Say they want to provoke a riot, they send in the covert ops to provoke the crowd, arrest everyone. Since they don’t have to report or try anyone, they legally can release the agents and hold the rest. They can’t be allowed to hold anyone under regular civilian law as everyone arrested has to be accounted for. This way they don’t have to let anyone know who the agents are and who isn’t. This is a way to cover up all black ops and allow then legal immunity as they do not have to let anyone know who they arrested and who they release.

  17. A Son of Liberty says:

    Well! Hear they go again! I really liked Ronlad Regan even though he may have been one of the insiders. I say, if they want to come after True Ameicans, then bring it on! It seems we are always fighting the bad guys! GOD Save the Republic!

  18. Sam says:

    People need to read the bill carefully.
    The law doesn’t apply to UNITED STATES citizens.
    It applies to people who are citizens of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    BIG difference.

    This article should of been about the definitions and types of citizenship within this territory.

  19. Support Your Local Sheriff says:

    This smells like the Feds are getting really worried that the sovereign states which make up the United States are going to start learning that their county sheriffs have enormous power to stop federal agents from entering their county. Since the local sheriff is constitutionally elected by the people of the county he represents, the county sheriff is fully in charge of who enters it.

  20. Expats says:

    If Joe Lieberman wants to live in Israel, then Joe Lieberman should move to Israel and leave the USA alone.

  21. It’s TREASON plain and simple. This government must go willingly or by FORCE. But they WILL go. This will not be negotiated. THEY WILL LEAVE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

  22. amicus curiae says:

    what Pascal says seems to ring true, small increments and the public too unaware to protest, and supression of protest ie OWS, derision of those who do care enough to speak up, label them as louts and idiots etc.
    anyone speaking up or against the govt of the day is suspect?
    funny- democracy or a free republic is founded on that right to disagree and say so.
    or was…once.

  23. Pascal says:

    The enabling acts of Germany? Perhaps. Helmut Von Campe has written of his involvement in the Nazi brown shirts of wwII. His book is a warning that what he sees in America is what he saw in Nazi Germany pre-hostility. An interview is available on you-tube, but I recommend his book as well.

    The election after the bailouts, only a tiny handfull of incumbents were ousted from national office. I cannot say an election will do much good this time either. People are too brainwashed to understand it is who counts the vote that matters, not how many votes are cast for the candidates.

  24. Churchill says:

    Yea, and the lines are fading fast separating DHS/FEMA and it’s COG (Continuity of Government)in case of a declaration of Martial Law and as who it considers as a terrorist and the DoD. Both the DHS/FEMA and the DoD are under the jurisdiction of the executive branch of Government (President). What is to stop FEMA from handing over custody of a prisoner-s or detainees to the DoD if ordered by the President even without martial law now?

  25. Alessia says:

    It allows the President to target not only those who helped perpetrate the 9/11 attacks or those who harbored them, but also: anyone who “substantially supports” such groups and/or “associated forces.”

    This makes my blood boil because the whole charade is based on a pack of lies and the American people accept it!!! Given what is known about those attacks, this provision of the law calls for immediate impeachment and imprisonment of both the previous and current adminstrations! Instead, the American people play along with the fairy story and complain their rights and their constitution are being attacked. Grow a pair, wake up your military, and go seize the real criminals NOW!!!!!

  26. Nailer45 says:

    Someone mentioned the term “any conflict subject to the laws of war ” , well if the NDAA is made law then America is considered a Battlefield which would put it under military law and laws of war.
    The Tyrant Nazi Regime in washington district of corruption is doing everything it can to abolish our rights and turn law abiding citizens into criminals with a few strokes of the pen.

    We need to band together and use the powers given to us in the Constitution to remove the Tyrants or we all will become subjects to be controlled.

    The Tree of Liberty is parched and dying as we stand and do nothing by letting the Government destroy our rights, take away our Freedom and Liberty.

  27. citizen reader says:

    She missed it.

    “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.” [//emphasis//]

    “authorities” in this context can certainly be interpreted to include Executive Orders. In effect, this is placing a /legal/ barrier to challenging the “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 effect, it renders EO’s relating to the unconstitutional overreach of the executive (“authority”) as the Law of the Land.

  28. Michael says:

    The provisions of the NDAA that would indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen is unconstitutional. Soon the Supreme Court will be called upon to rule on this issue. All members of Congress who voted for the NDAA have violated their oath of office and should be recalled.

  29. dogismyth says:

    hahaha…so funny. Basically, they (the PTB) may be circumventing the “sovereignty” fad whereupon individuals are reclaiming their god given rights and canceling all previous contracts (invisible) with the government (such as social security). Citizenship is membership (well, more like peasanthood) into the big company, the USA Inc. Its a long story and most would think the idea is crazy unless they have done their homework on personal sovereignty and how it can be achieved. Citizenship was conferred on all of us as a result of the “freeing of the slaves”. Slaves did not become free…we (non-slaves) were actually brought to the slave level through citizenship. Its a nasty word in my book. And the states have been bought off or are complicit in the ultimate objective (whatever that may be) of the rich and quietly unknown.

    You have no true constitutional rights under the employment of the USA Inc. You are a committed employee…or citizen. And just as your constitutional rights can be inapplicable at your workplace, thus it is so for citizens!

    So…maybe they are saying to the sovereign seekers….”denounce your citizenship and you may be classified as alien or a foreign terrorist”. They (the USA and its penal system) would like nothing better than to drag you off to prison under the guise of this NDAA bill.

    Far fetched? You have no idea.

  30. jeff says:

    MY LETTER TO SENATOR CASEY BELOW>>>>>

    Dear Senator Casey,

    I just received your response to my letter to you about the NDAA (national defence authorization act) and am appalled at your inability to correctly understand language. Now, let’s go over this one more time.

    “The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law and particularly to deny him the judgement of his peers is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist.” ~ Winston Churchill

    Myth # 1: This bill does not codify indefinite detention

    Section 1021 of the NDAA governs, as its title says, “Authority of the Armed Forces to Detain Covered Persons Pursuant to the AUMF.” The first provision — section (a) — explicitly “affirms that the authority of the President” under the AUMF ”includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons.” The next section, (b), defines “covered persons” — i.e., those who can be detained by the U.S. military — as “a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” With regard to those “covered individuals,” this is the power vested in the President by the next section, (c):

    It simply cannot be any clearer within the confines of the English language that this bill codifies the power of indefinite detention. It expressly empowers the President — with regard to anyone accused of the acts in section (b) – to detain them “without trial until the end of the hostilities.” That is the very definition of “indefinite detention,” and the statute could not be clearer that it vests this power. Anyone claiming this bill does not codify indefinite detention should be forced to explain how they can claim that in light of this crystal clear provision.

    Myth #2: The bill does not expand the scope of the War on Terror as defined by the 2001 AUMF

    This myth is very easily dispensed with. The scope of the war as defined by the original 2001 AUMF was, at least relative to this new bill, quite specific and narrow. Here’s the full extent of the power the original AUMF granted:

    (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

    Under the clear language of the 2001 AUMF, the President’s authorization to use force was explicitly confined to those who (a) helped perpetrate the 9/11 attack or (b) harbored the perpetrators. That’s it. Now look at how much broader the NDAA is with regard to who can be targeted:

    Section (1) is basically a re-statement of the 2001 AUMF. But Section (2) is a brand new addition. It allows the President to target not only those who helped perpetrate the 9/11 attacks or those who harbored them, but also: anyone who “substantially supports” such groups and/or “associated forces.” Those are extremely vague terms subject to wild and obvious levels of abuse (see what Law Professor Jonathan Hafetz told me in an interview last week about the dangers of those terms). This is a substantial statutory escalation of the War on Terror and the President’s powers under it, and it occurs more than ten years after 9/11, with Osama bin Laden dead, and with the U.S. Government boasting that virtually all Al Qaeda leaders have been eliminated and the original organization (the one accused of perpetrating 9/11 attack) rendered inoperable.

    Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill

    This is simply false, at least when expressed so definitively and without caveats. The bill is purposely muddled on this issue which is what is enabling the falsehood.

    There are two separate indefinite military detention provisions in this bill. The first, Section 1021, authorizes indefinite detention for the broad definition of “covered persons” discussed above in the prior point. And that section does provide that “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.” So that section contains a disclaimer regarding an intention to expand detention powers for U.S. citizens, but does so only for the powers vested by that specific section. More important, the exclusion appears to extend only to U.S. citizens “captured or arrested in the United States” — meaning that the powers of indefinite detention vested by that section apply to U.S. citizens captured anywhere abroad (there is some grammatical vagueness on this point, but at the very least, there is a viable argument that the detention power in this section applies to U.S. citizens captured abroad).

    But the next section, Section 1022, is a different story. That section specifically deals with a smaller category of people than the broad group covered by 1021: namely, anyone whom the President determines is “a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force” and “participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.” For those persons, section (a) not only authorizes, but requires (absent a Presidential waiver), that they be held “in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.” The section title is “Military Custody for Foreign Al Qaeda Terrorists,” but the definition of who it covers does not exclude U.S. citizens or include any requirement of foreignness.

    That section — 1022 — does not contain the broad disclaimer regarding U.S. citizens that 1021 contains. Instead, it simply says that the requirement of military detention does not apply to U.S. citizens, but it does not exclude U.S. citizens from the authority, the option, to hold them in military custody. Here is what it says:

    The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.

    In sum, there is simply no question that this bill codifies indefinite detention without trial (Myth 1). There is no question that it significantly expands the statutory definitions of the War on Terror and those who can be targeted as part of it (Myth 2). The issue of application to U.S. citizens (Myth 3) is purposely muddled — that’s why Feinstein’s amendments were rejected — and there is consequently no doubt this bill can and will be used by the U.S. Government (under this President or a future one) to bolster its argument that it is empowered to indefinitely detain even U.S. citizens without a trial (NYT Editorial: “The legislation could also give future presidents the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial”; Sen. Bernie Sanders: “This bill also contains misguided provisions that in the name of fighting terrorism essentially authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charges”).

    The bill contains “terrible new measures that will make indefinite detention and military trials a permanent part of American law.”

  31. Robert Rubin says:

    What about elected official did not follow the constitution, they should loss the citizenship too! And if they love other nation more than US, send them to that nation and take the citizenship away!

  32. Danny Adams says:

    >>Unless I’m missing something, that subprovision says detention by military does not apply to U.S. citizens.<<

    As much as I like Devvy Kidd, she's wrong here. The bill doesn't say it doesn't apply to U.S. citizens; it says there's no *requirement* to detain a citizen in military custody. That only means it's not mandatory–it doesn't mean it can't happen at all.

  33. Anonymous for obvious reasons says:

    I disagree with your (and Devvy’s) analysis of NDAA. It says there is no “requirement”. That can also be read as, “there is an option to”. It does not say anything about being exempt. It is left open as an option. Think like a lawyer.

    Other blogs have been discussing this in the same way.

  34. PC says:

    There is a section that defines hostilities as “any conflict subject to the laws of war.”. If you look at the law of war, it applies ONLY to international conflicts. It does not include insurrections or civil wars. So isn’t it logical to conclude that american citizens expressing dissent even in a violent way could not be stripped of their citizenship ?

  35. john says:

    USA + ISRAEL = NAZIS