• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

***NDAA ALERT*** This is no joke...

Rossignol

The Original Sheriff
Global Moderator
Sponsor
Moderator
Folks, I know I can be conspiritorial at times and more or less distrustful of most elected officials. I just dont see where they fulfill their oath of office and pledge to be gaurdians of the Constitution.

This post is in regard to HR 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act, sections 1021, 1031, 1031e, and 1032.

I'll give the shortended version now and fill in the detail as I'm able to, I have a lot of information to go through, and I want to be thorough, clear and ... well, sometimes I'm concise. I'll back up whatever I post with links to whatever source I quote, but not until I have the actual language of the new regulations.

Heres the basics of it.

The office of the president of the United States of America has been given complete authority over the US military to use them as police and law enforcement to the ends of arresting "suspected" terrorists including US CITIZENS on AMERICAN SOIL without charge or trail and indefinite detainment!!! Section 1021 specifically grants authority to the president to deny due process to any American suspected of or charged of substantially supporting terrorism. (again I need to get the exact language here)

In the language, it mentions Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and persons suspected of supporting these entities, ... and heres where I need more info;

Mention is made of "having seven days of food on hand" and "owning firearms". I need to confirm thes pieces yet. I have seen it in type on news sites, but dont yet know the sources.

I warned of stuff like this at least a year ago and had been told it would take an act of congress ratifying the constitution for something like this to happen. But here it is, back door legislation Obama promised to veto, but signed as law I think Dec 23rd or 24th. (again unclear here) I do know that both houses agreed to the legislation as early as Dec 15th.

While the NDAA has been around for about 48 years, this bit of language is all new and errodes our 5th and 6th Ammendments as well as section 1 of the 14th Ammendment.

When I go back through all this, I'll post the Ammendments and the exact language of the new sections of the NDAA.

The implications and consequences are far reaching as this is all loosely worded and poorly written allowing for any number of things to be suspect of terrorism.

This is martial law without calling it martial law. Its straight out of 1939 Germany. The last time this happened in US history was during the Southern Reconstruction following the Civil War which was ended and banned in 1869 I think it was. It was proposed again during the McCarthy Era but was veto'd by Truman.

This is the end of Habeas Corpus and due process as prescribed by and protected by the US Constitution.

Some are called to be shepherds, others... watchdogs.
 
Me too...

3ILMY.jpg
 
I'm still sorting through the BS (bovine scatology) to find which end is up...

What used to be 1031 is now 1021 but is otherwise unchanged, and now there is the Feinstein ammendment making it 1031e... which states "nothing in this section shall be construed" implying as far as I can find that only the Supreme Court has the power to "construe" law.

There was a specific exemption denying the possibility or allowance of US citizens to be arrested militarily, but it is now not there which does allow the possibility, or as is being called, "statutorily agnostic". Until I find the exact legislation, I'll go with this in that, it does not specifically say "US citizens", but the language which specified only foreign terrorist could be arrested and detained with no charge or trial, is now gone opening the possibility of including the US citizenry. The language was dropped at the request of the White House.

Bear with me as I continue my search, I keep finding bits and pieces and references... I found a PDF of an earlier version that didnt include the exact changes I'm lookin for and I dont want to give out any false information here.

B. out.
 
The ammendments to the legislation are sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin of MI, and Sen. John McCain of AZ.

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

(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) 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:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(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 THE LAWS 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.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions 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.

(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.

(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.

The above section, 1031, is now Section 1021; directly from the Library of Congress. Click the PDF link at the end of item #6.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1540:

Subtitle D—Counterterrorism
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.
(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:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(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.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States
Code (as amended by the Military Commissions 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.
(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.
(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.
(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—The Secretary
of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application
of the authority described in this section, including the organizations,
entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’
for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

Above in the wording regarding "covered persons" is also language "including any person who has committed a belligerent act". What does that mean?

Still searching searching for the new language on 1031, and 1032. I need to find that stuff and navigating the Library of Congress' site in confusing!
 
I think "belligerent act" is pretty straightforward in this context


Subtitle D—Counterterrorism
SEC. 1021.

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.

The webster definition of BELLIGERENT
1: waging war; specifically : belonging to or recognized as a state at war and protected by and subject to the laws of war
2: inclined to or exhibiting assertiveness, hostility, or combativeness

The 2nd definition concerns me more than a little as that could be construed as nothing more than using your First Amendment rights to deliver a fiery speach and it ticks off the wrong people.
 
Thanks John! :D Thats among the things I had wanted to look up!

Folks, bear with me. I'm finding so many conflicting view points over the language and even searching ".gov" sites is difficult at best.

It seems things I searched yesterday arent there anymore and even within the Library of Congress, there are differing versions and "House Revisions".

The two sections I quoted above are identical, but appear in different versions under each numbered section. I have found the other sections, but only quoted on other sites. I prefer to give you the security stamped stuff from the LoC.

Erik Kain of Forbes magazine said this;
We’re talking about the stripping away of our most basic freedoms. We’re talking about a potential state that can call me a terrorist for writing this blog post and then lock me up and throw away the key.

I have many more examples like this but cant find the legislation I read yesterday... so frustrating.
 
I'm embarassed to admit that Levin is from my State. The people here just keep reelecting him.

And John McCain...well, things like this are why people couldn't get on board with him back on 08.

I'm curious to see where this goes. IMHO we've given up way to much of our freedom for a false sense of security.
 
You know what confuses me more than anything is the fact that John McCain was a prisoner of war.

I wonder how he would've felt if those laws were in effect when he was in a vietnamese prison with no hope or chance of release?

I don't condone releasing dangerous prisoners or just slapping them on the wrist and turning them loose neither, but I can't condone keeping them locked up without a trial forever either. That seems very unamerican to me.

It troubles me more than a little to know that everything I was ever taught about what makes America great is being completely disregarded by those that swore an oath to uphold and protect our Constitution.
 
Once these unconstitutional powers were given, the slippery slope became much steeper......now, we must trust in the moral and clear character of our elected officials, anyone feels good about that?!

HTC Vision Custom
 
MossLvR said:
Once these unconstitutional powers were given, the slippery slope became much steeper......

That's actually a good point.

It would seem that we have done more damage to what makes us America by allowing the erosion of our rights, than what Al-Quida could've ever done to physically destroy it.

And I think that is why so many people are upset.

10 years ago, would you have ever dreamed that a bill would've passed both the house and senate and be signed into law that says that US citizens that are suspected of wrong-doing could be held indefinitly? Without a trial?

I wouldn't have, but look where we are at now.

What I would like to know is just who is deciding who may be doing wrong?

Perilous times we live in.
 
John A. said:
MossLvR said:
What I would like to know is just who is deciding who may be doing wrong?


+1



Lots of focus is being put on the presidential race right now but the thing that many Americans are being distracted from is congress. Regardless of who sits in the oval offive, nothing really gets passed unless congress approves. And many from both sides approve of (and have approved) these types of controls.
 
Well the short answer is that the "war machine" must be fed big bucks even if that means in the USA......it's a simplification but politicians surely do not serve the average taxpayer/citizenry with this vote. Randy Paul was one of the few lone voices against this "secret" NDAA initiative and it passed with support from both sides of the isle and ^#^% the constitution which protects citizens against just this.
 
Youre absolutely right about Rand Paul of KY. He and very few others opposed the legislation.

Heres what we know;
The new House Resolution to the NDAA was attached to the tax holiday extension and passed right along with it. It was signed by Obama who, parenthetically said he would veto the changes, on the 23rd of Dec. with little opposition. There was initially wording to comepletely exclude US citizens from even the possibility of being detained by US Armed Forces upon suspicion of terrorism, but it was removed. (I had seen who recommended it be removed, but I navigated away from the page. I'll find it again however.) While the removal isnt intrinsically inclusive of US citizens, neither is it intrisically exlusive.

I'll post section 1022 of HR 1540; page 266 of the link I posted above. (to get to the actual HR 1540, you have to click the link and it the PDF option of number 7 of the list)

But first I want to address the timing and manner in which the resolution was passed.

The houses had bean deadlocked regarding the tax holiday extension (which was stupid in my opinion anyway) and going into the Christmas holiday break, all news was reporting it seemed as if no compromise could be reached. Well, it passed and was signed into law on the 23rd... right when everyone became pre-occupied with the holidays, talk radio hosts left for vacation, and elected officials all left Washington. Hence, there is little coverage and few people have even noticed. Because of the timing, it hasnt appeared in the news cycle at all. Few online news sources have mentioned it, let alone covered it. Back door legislation from our new transparent government. If memory serves, we were told this sort of thing wouldnt be taking place anymore and all legislation would be made visible for a predertimined time to the public before any vote could be made. I think it was supposed to be 72 hours, but its possible I'm wrong.

Heres the PDF link to HR 1540. Section 22 is on page 266.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf

SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.
(a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the
Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described
in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities
authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force
(Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition
under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1)
shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under
section 1021 who is determined—
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an
associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant
to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or
carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the
United States or its coalition partners.
(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—For purposes of this
subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war
has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no
transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section
shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section
1028.
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The President may
waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits
to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is
in the national security interests of the United States.
(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.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis
of conduct taking place within the United States, except to
the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
(c) IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and
submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.
(2) ELEMENTS.—The procedures for implementing this section
shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to
make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the
process by which such determinations are to be made.
(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military
custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the
interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering
with regard to persons not already in the custody
or control of the United States.
(C) Procedures providing that a determination under
subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until
after the conclusion of an interrogation which is ongoing
at the time the determination is made and does not require
the interruption of any such ongoing interrogation.
(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military
custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when
intelligence, law enforcement, or other Government officials
of the United States are granted access to an individual
who remains in the custody of a third country.
(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national
security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted
for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a
third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the
United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.
(d) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security
authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other
domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person,
regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.
(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect on the
date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection
(a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control
of the United States on or after that effective date.

The parts in question to me are;
#1, Subparts (a) through (a)(2)(B)
and then
#2, Subparts (b)(1)

This doesnt make a ton of sense to me. I'm open to help on this one. It sounds as if (b)(1) is saying the requirements dont have to be met to detain a US citizen if the President submits in writing a request otherwise.

Does this mean no one is safe or above suspicion of terrorism?

1984 and Atlas Shrugged were fiction, a warning at most. They were never supposed to be the playbooks.
 
I found some interesting stuff on the less than conservative Huffington Post;

Posted by DONNA CASSATA on 12/13/11 10:34 AM ET
Huffington Post

Responding to appeals from Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and FBI Director Robert Mueller, lawmakers added a provision that says nothing in the bill will affect "existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the FBI or any other domestic law enforcement agency" with regard to a captured suspect, "regardless of whether such ... person is held in military custody."

The bill also says the president can waive the provision based on national security. Originally that authority rested with the defense secretary.

House and Senate negotiators dropped several of the provisions in the House bill that also had drawn a veto threat, including the requirement of military tribunals for all cases...

The legislation would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention. The lawmakers made no changes to that language...

"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. The bill strikes at the very heart of American values," Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. "Based on suspicion alone, no place and no person are off-limits to military detention without charge or trial."

This I found on Code Red;
Code Red

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQb9s3m8MPE[/youtube]

Transcript follows;
Citizens of the United States,
We are Anonymous.

This message is an urgent warning to the people of the United States. The government has been plotting treason against you.

An addition to the National Defense Authorization Act, Sections 1031 and 1032, will allow the United States government to imprison any person who commits any act they disagree with indefinitly and without trial. Section 1031 reads, “A covered person under this section” includes, “any person who has committed a belligerent act.” All persons accused do not get a trial. The Feinstein Amendment, 1031 e, states that, “nothing in this section shall be construed.” The Supreme Court are the only ones with the power to construe laws. If this law is passed exactly 24 hours after this video is published, there is no turning back.

They will call us liberals and fanatics. Those are words. Look at the proof. The United States government is deceiving you. If you do not wake up now, it will be too late. Your last day of freedom is today. Will you ignore this message and continue your day without another thought? Or will you fight back against this corrupt and vile government? The choice is yours. The latter is best. Petitions will not work this time. Corporates and Billionaires have backed up this law and the government is certain that you will not take action. They are certain that their “bread and circuses” tactic will succeed. Let us prove them wrong.

We are Anonymous.
We are Legion.
We do not Forgive.
We do not Forget.
To the United States government, you should’ve expected us.

Uhhh... Anonymous is a hack group BTW...

I'm also finding some rather left leaning columnists and online news sources in rather strong opposition to this legislation.
 
Americans lose with this Act. Big brother can now violate you because you no longer have rights, not even to counsel or a public trial..............all I can think is "wow" when I think of our kids.
 
I dont mean to sound as if my point is to scare the crap out of everyone...

I really wanna get to the bottom of it. I'm rather confused over some of the language, why it has so much support and if the support (being almost unanimous) then why do the opposition feel the way they do?

I think I'm in the minority when I look at this resolution. Is it possible I'm over reacting and goin all conspiracy theory?

There was support from both sides... There is clear oposition on both sides. I have even read liberal bent columnists of the "blame Bush" crowd, saying that not only does this not do away with Bush era practices, it expands on those practices and goes much further by including US citizens for the first time. So, while they have their delusions like the rest of us, they make the same points regarding the suspect legislation...

Of to work now... I have to pull the wagon a little further down the road.
 
Here is what I have found on Wikipedia... I know its wiki, so dont take it as gospel. It is however congruent with other reports on the new resolution.

Wikipedia, NDAA
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 is a controversial bill that has been passed by both houses of Congress separately, and a final version approved by the Senate on December 15, 2011. Although the White House and Senate sponsors maintain that the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) already grants presidential authority for indefinite detention, the Act legislatively codifies the President's authority to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects, including American citizens, without trial as defined in Title X, Subtitle D, SEC 1021(a-e) of the bill. Because those who may be held indefinitely include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, and because that detention may be by the military, the Act has received critical attention by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and media sources

Indefinite Detention without trial: Section 1021
Pursuant to the AUMF passed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the NDAA text affirms the President's authority to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces," under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of hostilities." The text also authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin," or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity."[13] An amendment to the Act that would have explicitly forbidden the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens was rejected.[14]

Addressing previous conflict with the Obama Administration regarding the wording of the Senate text, the Senate-House compromise text also affirms that nothing in the Act "is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authority for Use of Military Force."

Requirement for Military Custody: Section 1022
All persons arrested and detained according to the provisions of section 1021, including those detained on U.S. soil, whether detained indefinitely or not, are required to be held by the United States Armed Forces. The requirement does not extend to U.S. citizens. Lawful resident aliens may or may not be required to be detained by the Armed Forces, "on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States."[15][16]

Any numbers you see after text or sentences are links to sources cited on the Wiki page. They dont work here, but if you check out the Wiki entry, you can look up the sources, which is what I'll be doin for awhile myself.

I swear I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm just very conservative and troubled by govt bloat and expansion of power over individual freedoms.
 
Rossignol said:
I swear I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm just very conservative and troubled by govt bloat and expansion of power over individual freedoms.

I personally think you have every reason to be concerned, the fairness and justness of those that can wield these "powers" now seriously come into question.
 
Back
Top