Thread: Tell Congress: Stop The NDAA
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
- 05-17-2012, 09:07 AM #1
Tell Congress: Stop The NDAA
Tell Congress: Stop Police State Tyranny In America
4,704 Letters and Emails Sent So Far
Tell Congress: Stop Police State Tyranny In America
On July 2, 2008 in Colorado Springs Colorado, candidate Barack Obama said:
"we can no longer continue to rely on the military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've gotta have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded as our military."
And now quietly, without comments from the mainstream media, without opposition from anyone in Congress, America is becoming Obama's police state.
Concerned Americans, we must pay attention! The writing is on the wall. We must wake up:
CONSERVATIVES SILENCED. A Department of Homeland Security report entitled, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" warns of "radical" groups like Christian cults, pro-life groups and returning military veterans. It names "hate groups" as those who are against gun control, immigration, gay marriage, or big government. In other words, a "hate group" is a group that dislikes the policies of Barack Obama. At what point will political dissenters be labeled "terrorists?"
AMERICAN CONCENTRATION CAMPS. HR 645, the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act, initiates the framework for mass-quarantine of American citizens. HR 645 calls for the creation of at least six national facilities for the concentration of civilian internees. Who are they planning to detain?
STABILITY POLICE FORCE. The George Soros-funded Rand Corporation issued a report calling for a Stability Police Force (SPF), saying "Stability operations have become an inescapable reality of U.S. foreign policy. Establishing security with soldiers and police is critical because it is difficult to achieve other objectives - such as rebuilding political and economic systems - without it."
STATE-LEVEL MILITARY ACTIVITIES. Obama signed an executive order establishing a Council of Governors, which is to be a panel of 10 state governors selected by the President who will review "review matters involving the National Guard; homeland defense; civil support; and synchronization and integration of state and federal military activities in the United States," according to the White House. Has Obama now federalized the states and gained control of the National Guard?
GOVERNMENT AMASSING WEAPONS. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has just completed a contract for the receipt of 450 million rounds of hollow-point ammunition over a period of five years. Why does the DHS need 450 million bullets for a country of 300 million people?
INTERNATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. Obama signed executive order 12425, giving the international police force INTERPOL immunity from American law. INTERPOL now has free reign in the United States, unencumbered by the Fourth Amendment, the Freedom of Information Act, American law enforcement agencies, and the U.S. Constitution. Obama has now given our sovereignty away to an international police force.
The government's encroachment of our rights will continue as long as we fail to act! Where will this dangerous pathway end?
Conservative Action Alerts is calling on you to help preserve freedom, democracy and citizen sovereignty. Send your personalized messages to your Representative and Senators right now and ask them to de-fund existing programs that threaten the freedom of American citizens or bypasses our Constitution; further, tell them to oppose any future legislation that accomplishes the same.
Enter Your Name and Submit to Sign
Tell Congress: Stop Police State Tyranny In America | Conservative Action Alerts
Last edited by working4change; 05-17-2012 at 12:48 PM.The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. Plato
- 05-17-2012, 12:54 PM #2
NDAA: Indefinite detention stopped? Not so fast
Published: 17 May, 2012, 20:20
AFP Photo / Don Emmert
TRENDS: Defense Authorization Act
TAGS: Law, USA
A US judge ruled on Wednesday that the indefinite military detention of American citizens, as allowed in the National Defense Authorization Act that President Barack Obama signed on December 31, 2011, is unconstitutional.
For now, American citizens will be excluded from the NDAA’s nasty laws that allow the government to detain persons with suspected ties to terrorist groups behind bars without ever pressing charges. Civilians the world over still face persecution, however, as the controversial legislation continues to allow for their imprisonment.
United States District Judge Katherine Forrest declared this week that the NDAA’s indefinite detention provision has a "chilling impact on First Amendment rights” and formally struck down the section of the legislation that allows for the government to imprison Americans for only supposed terrorist ties. Unless the law is further challenged, though, those outside the US still face the wrath of Uncle Sam for having only suspected links with anti-American forces.
Chris Hedges, a reporter with a career that spans stints with outlets such as National Public Radio and The New York Times, added his name to a lawsuit earlier this year challenging the legality of the NDAA. He was among the journalists and civilian activists who were instrumental in challenging the legislation in a court of law.
“I have had dinner more times than I can count with people whom this country brands as terrorists,” Hedges wrote earlier this year, “but that does not make me one.”
In her ruling this week, Judge Forrest appears to agree, writing, "In the face of what could be indeterminate military detention, due process requires more.”
"An individual could run the risk of substantially supporting or directly supporting an associated force without even being aware that he or she was doing so,” she added.
Although Judge Forrest’s ruling this week is without a doubt a milestone in terms of revoking the NDAA, her efforts are but only a start in terms of terminating the legislation. For now, more than 6 billion citizens of foreign nations can still be handcuffed and hauled away to a military prison without ever being brought to trial. This week’s decision may protect Americans from that provision, but unfortunately does nothing to spare both foreign reporters and civilians from a life of imprisonment.
Hedges himself applauded the ruling, calling it "a tremendous step forward for the restoration of due process and the rule of law,” reports the Associated Press.
"Ever since the law has come out, and because the law is so amorphous, the problem is you're not sure what you can say, what you can do and what context you can have,” added Hedges.
The judge’s ruling comes, coincidentally, at the same time that the US House Armed Services Committee has passed next year’s National Defense Authorization Act. Congress is expected to begin voting on amendments for next year’s NDAA as early as this this week, but during Wednesday’s opening debates it was revealed that indefinite detention is already included once again in the bill.
Presidential hopeful and congressman, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), has signed his name to an amendment proposed by Rep. Adam Smith (D-Washington) and Rep. Justin Amash (R-Michigan) that will shoot down the indefinite detainment of anyone in the next NDAA.
"Hopefully we can be successful this week in clarifying this to make sure once and for all that we as a people don't endorse the whole notion —which contradicts everything we should believe in — that we could be arrested and put in secret prisons," said Rep. Paul.
"If we don't change this, believe me, this country is in serious trouble.”
NDAA: Indefinite detention stopped? Not so fast — RTThe price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. Plato
- 05-17-2012, 12:56 PM #3The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. Plato
- 05-18-2012, 07:57 AM #4
House showdown on detainees
Reps. Adam Smith (left) and Justin Amash are shown. | AP Photo
An unlikely alliance of libertarian Republicans and liberal Democrats confronted their House colleagues early Friday morning over the highly contentious question of whether the government has the power to indefinitely detain suspected terrorists captured on U.S. soil.
This strange-bedfellows coalition rallied behind a proposal that would make it clear that suspected terrorists detained in the United States must be charged with crimes and tried in federal courts.
Leading the charge were Reps. Adam Smith, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, and Justin Amash, a tea party-backed Republican from Michigan. Their amendment was considered on the House floor as lawmakers haggled over the details of this year’s defense authorization bill.
And with debate stretching past 1:30 a.m. Friday, House members called it a night and put off the vote on the Smith-Amash amendment until after 9 a.m.
The authorization bill, which calls for $642 billion in Pentagon spending during the 2013 fiscal year, is expected to pass by a wide margin before the House recesses for the weekend. The Senate will begin marking up its own version next week.
“This is an extraordinary amount of power to give the president – to give the government the power to take away people’s rights and to lock them up without so much as a court hearing,” Smith said during an impassioned plea for support.
“What we’ve learned in the last 10 years is one power [the president] does not need is the power to indefinitely detain or place in military custody people in the United States,” Smith added. “Our justice system works.”
It was clear from the start, though, that the Smith-Amash amendment faced an uphill battle. A slew of Republicans railed against the measure, saying it would provide additional rights to foreign terrorists.
“This amendment turns the global war on terror into a CSI investigation,” said Rep. Jeff Landry (R-La.). “Our law enforcement system in this country is by nature an after-the-fact deterrent. What deters a person from driving a plane into a building?”
Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) also chimed in. “We have to understand that we are in a war,” he said. “We are not in a police action.”
The Council on American-Islamic Relations has endorsed the Smith-Amash amendment, noted West, who suggested the Muslim advocacy group is working with foreign terrorists, calling it a “co-conspirator” against the United States.
Fighting back, Smith blasted his opponents’ arguments as ludicrous and framed the debate as a battle to preserve the rights enshrined the in the Constitution. “I would point out,” he said, “that our justice system has arrested countless terrorists before they had time to act by investigating their plots and stopping them.”
The other side wasn’t swayed, and many House Republicans backed a competing measure, sponsored by Landry and Reps. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) and Scott Rigell (R-Va.). The amendment, which would prohibit the government from denying U.S. citizens their constitutional rights, is also set to be voted on later Friday.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1vDmCG4c1
Last edited by working4change; 05-18-2012 at 07:59 AM.The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. Plato
- 05-18-2012, 08:03 AM #5
Tell Congress: Fix the NDAA
Soon, the House of Representatives will vote on this year’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and they will finally revisit the bill signed last December authorizing this president and all future presidents to order the military to put civilians picked up far from any battlefield into indefinite detention without charge or trial, based on suspicion alone.
Fortunately, Congressmen Adam Smith and Justin Amash are introducing an amendment to this year's NDAA that would fix the problems created last year by repealing the mandatory military detention requirement and banning indefinite detention.
Tell your Representative to support the Smith-Amash amendment — the only real fix to the NDAA.
The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. Plato
- 05-18-2012, 08:10 AM #6
Retired Admirals and Generals Endorse Smith-Amash Amendment
By Raffaela Wakeman
Wednesday, May 16, 2012 at 1:00 PM
The debate over the Smith-Amash amendment to the NDAA continues. Yesterday, we posted a letter written by former administration attorneys general criticizing that amendment, among others. Today, it’s twenty-seven retired admirals and generals writing in support of the Smith-Amash Amendment to the 2013 NDAA in a letter organized by Human Rights First.
The letter says:
We are members of a nonpartisan group of forty retired generals and admirals concerned about U.S. policy regarding detention and treatment of persons held by our armed forces.
We write to urge you to support the Smith-Amash Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for (“NDAA”) the 2013 Fiscal Year. The Smith-Amash Amendment would roll back controversial and ill-advised detention provisions passed into law last year by banning indefinite detention within the United States and repealing a policy that mandates military custody for foreign terrorism suspects.
As retired general and flag officers, we do not make this request lightly. However, we strongly believe that sound national security policy depends on faithful adherence to the rule of law. Though it is lawful for the military to detain those engaged in hostilities in an armed conflict, the armed forces should not supplant our law enforcement and intelligence agencies at home. Those detained in the U.S. should not be held indefinitely without charge or trial or forced into military custody. Within the United States, those accused of terrorism crimes should face charges in a civilian court, consistent with our constitutional values.
We appreciate that our leaders are constantly striving to make America more secure, but the indefinite detention and mandatory military custody provisions passed into law in the Fiscal Year 2012 NDAA will do more harm than good. The Smith-Amash Amendment, if passed into law, would be an important first step towards reversing this damage.
The forty signatories are:
General Ronald H. Griffith, USA (Ret.)
General Joseph P. Hoar, USMC (Ret.)
General Charles C. Krulak, USMC (Ret.)
General David M. Maddox, USA (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Robert G. Gard Jr., USA (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Charles Otstott, USA (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Harry E. Soyster, USA (Ret.)
Major General Paul D. Eaton, USA (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Don Guter, JAGC, USN (Ret.)
Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, JAGC, USN (Ret.)
Major General Melvyn S. Montano, ANG (Ret.)
Major General William L. Nash, USA (Ret.)
Major General Thomas J. Romig, USA (Ret.)
Major General Walter L. Stewart, Jr., USA (Ret.)
Major General Antonio M. Taguba, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General John Adams, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General David M. Brahms, USMC (Ret.)
Brigadier General Stephen A. Cheney, USMC (Ret.)
Brigadier General Evelyn P. Foote, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General Leif H. Hendrickson, USMC (Ret.)
Brigadier General David R. Irvine, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General John H. Johns, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General Keith H. Kerr, CSMR (Ret.)
Brigadier General Richard O’Meara, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General Murray G. Sagsveen, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General Anthony Verrengia, USAF (Ret.)
Brigadier General Stephen N. Xenakis, USA (Ret.)
Lawfare › Retired Admirals and Generals Endorse Smith-Amash AmendmentThe price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. Plato
- 05-18-2012, 08:13 AM #7
MAY 18, 2012 5:55AM
Judge: Obama's NDAA Unconstitutional
One can only wonder what is occurring in Congress when a law like the National Defense Authorization Act passes through both branches with so much support. Of course, a president who was previously a constitutional lawyer signing it into law is even more perplexing.
NDAA's 'Indefinite Detention' Provisions Unconstitutional, says Judge
In their suit, the plaintiffs stated they could be detained 'indefinitely' for their constitutionally protected activities. Citing the 'vagueness' of certain language in the bill, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest -- who was appointed to the court by Obama -- agreed, and said the law could have "chilling impact on First Amendment rights" for journalists, activists, and potentially all US citizens.
While this is not exactly surprising since there has been much online buzz about this National Defense Authorization Act being in violation of the U.S. Constitution, it is good to see it verified by a judicial system that has in recent years lost the confidence of a vast amalgam of the American populace.
But there is another interesting thing I discovered in looking for more information on this development. The opening pages of GOOGLE do not list one single major news outlet carrying the story. That fact, I think, speaks volumes, especially in tandem with the pathetic nature of signing into law of this horrific bill by a president whose background is specifically constitutional law. And it says much about how out of touch most of the American voters who support Obama really are.
The fact that Obama – supposedly a constitutional scholar – actually signed the NDAA into law is more telling, in my opinion. It saddens me to think our choices are between four more years of this kind of pathetic lawmaking, or worse, and that so many Americans refuse to make a firm stand against this particular brand of tyranny.
Chipping away, chipping away, chipping away …
Judge: Obama's NDAA Unconstitutional - Rick Lucke - Open SalonThe price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. Plato
- 05-18-2012, 09:01 AM #8
Lawmakers clash over rules for detaining terrorism suspects
By Pete Kasperowicz and Jeremy Herb - 05/18/12 12:50 AM ET
House members clashed at midnight over how to fix language allowing the permanent detention of terrorist suspects.
The fit pitted Republicans vs. Republicans, and centered on language in last year's National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that allowed the president to indefinitely detain terrorist suspects.
While that bill specified that the detention language did not override the rights American citizens have to due process, several members of Congress were worried that Americans could still be detained.
Lawmakers will vote on the amendments on Friday.
Republicans added language to the 2013 bill that is meant to further clarify that anyone detained in the United States would not be denied habeas corpus, or the right to appear in court.
But that change did not discourage two camps in the House from seeking further changes. At about midnight, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) called up his amendment, which he and other supporters said is aimed at further ensuring that American citizens are not detained under the law.
"It ensures that every American has access to our courts, and ensures that they will not be indefinitely detained," Rep. Jeff Landry (R-La.) said. But these members indicated that their language is intended to allow continued detention of terrorists.
"Those of us that have sponsored this amendment want to fix the possible problem of inappropriate detention," Gohmert said.
Others, including Reps. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) and Adam Smith (D-Wash.), argued that Gohmert's language was redundant, and simply reaffirms that anyone with rights in the United States should not be denied those rights. They argued that the real issue is that the government should not have the right to indefinitely detain those captured on U.S. soil, and put forward an amendment eliminating that language.
"If you want to protect the rights of people in this country, you want to support this amendment," Smith said of his language. Amash agreed that the Gohmert language would have no practical effect, and said it might even delay rights to people, since it says people can file for habeas corpus rights no later than 30 days — Amash said that right is automatic now.
But Gohmert and Landry said eliminating the ability to permanently detain terror suspects goes too far. At one point, Gohmert said terrorists would prefer Smith's language, a point Landry agreed with by arguing that Smith's language would lead to kinder treatment of terrorists in the United States than abroad.
"Unfortunately, some in this body choose to believe that our soil here is not a battlefield in the war on terror," Landry said. "They want to treat an al Qaeda cell in Seattle differently or better than an al Qaeda cell in Yemen.
"What we are saying it that people who are terrorists and kill Americans on American soil should not have more rights than an immigrant who is here peaceably but who is subject to the laws and subject to detention without going to an Article III court," Gohmert added.
Lawmakers clash over rules for detaining terrorism suspects - The Hill's Floor ActionThe price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. Plato
- 05-18-2012, 06:43 PM #9
- Join Date
- Sep 2010
- somewhere near Mexico I reckon!
House upholds indefinite detention of terror suspects
May 18, 2012 Defeats plan to stop the practice
House upholds indefinite detention of terror suspects
Last edited by stevetheroofer; 05-18-2012 at 06:53 PM.
- 05-18-2012, 06:51 PM #10
- Join Date
- Sep 2010
- somewhere near Mexico I reckon!
And on it's way to the Senate, Dems. and Republicans both oppose this bill,
Please scroll down on the page this link is at, to contact your states US Senators or any US senators. Twitter they assume if your tweeting them your their constituent.