MUST READ: Unchecked Executive War Power for Worldwide War in New Defense Bill

Author Topic: MUST READ: Unchecked Executive War Power for Worldwide War in New Defense Bill  (Read 17613 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,802
    • GlobalGulag.com
MUST READ: Unchecked Executive War Power Could Slip Through the House
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/05/must-read-unchecked-executive-war-power.html
Amanda Simon
ACLU

Tucked inside the National Defense Authorization Act, being marked up by the House Armed Services Committee this week, is a hugely important provision that hasn't been getting a lot of attention — a brand new authorization for a worldwide war.

This stealth provision was added to the bill by the committee's chairman, Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), but has a bit of a history. It was first proposed by former Attorney General Michael Mukasey in 2008 after the Bush administration lost the Boumediene v. Bush case, in which the Supreme Court decided that federal courts would subject the administration's asserted law of war basis to hold Guantanamo detainees to searching review. An idea that may have originally been intended to bolster the Bush administration's basis for holding Guantanamo detainees is now being promoted as an authorization of a worldwide war — and could become the single biggest ceding of unchecked war authority to the executive branch in modern American history.

The current authorization of war provided the constitutional authority for the executive branch to go to war in Afghanistan. Subsequently, it has reportedly been invoked by the executive branch much more broadly to also use military force in Yemen and elsewhere, to justify torture and abuse of detainees, to eavesdrop and spy on American citizens without warrants, and to imprison people captured far from any battlefield without charge or trial.

Before Congress this week, the proposed authorization of a worldwide war goes much further, however, allowing war wherever there are terrorism suspects in any country around the world without an expiration date, geographical boundaries or connection to the 9/11 attacks or any other specific harm or threat to the United States. There have been no hearings on the provision, nor has its necessity been explained by Rep. McKeon or anyone else in Congress.

The idea that Congress is about to pass new authority for a worldwide war as we're trying to ramp down our efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan is starting to get attention. We're hoping that the House Armed Serviced Committee, and the full House, will reconsider this troubling and dangerous provision. We'll keep you updated as this troubling provision progresses, but you can help now by telling your representative to oppose any new and expanded war authority.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

>>> Global Gulag Media & Forum <<<

Offline SUPREMEMASTER

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,830
  • Commander
    • http://www.activismoverdrive.comze.com
Quote
Tucked inside the National Defense Authorization Act, being marked up by the House Armed Services Committee this week, is a hugely important provision that hasn't been getting a lot of attention — a brand new authorization for a worldwide war.

Alex was correct
Automatic User Post Signature:
The message has to be put out in the right way.
Website Still Needs to be updated |ActivismOverDrive.comze.net|

Offline Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,802
    • GlobalGulag.com
Bill may put war in US president hands
Wed May 11, 2011 3:0PM

The House Armed Services Committee is expected to take up a defense authorization bill on Wednesday that includes a new authorization for the government to use military force in the war on terrorism.

The provision has set off an argument over whether it is a mere update - or a sweeping, open-ended expansion - of the power Congress granted to the executive branch in 2001.

The provision states that Congress "affirms" that "the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces," and that the president is authorized to use military force - including detention without trial - of members and substantial supporters of those forces.  NYT

HIGHLIGHTS

Republican chair of the Armed Services Committee, Howard McKeon, R-CA, revealed The National Defense Authorization Act on Monday, which includes a bill renewing an act passed just days after 9/11, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). Salon

The committee is scheduled to vote Wednesday on amendments to the bill. NYT

AUMF gave then-President George W. Bush carte blanche to hunt down the 9/11 perpetrators and their allies. Salon

The renewed bill, however, makes no reference to the 9/11 attackers and some critics have called it "the first full-scale declaration of war by the U.S. since World War II," since it makes no reference to the capturing of parties guilty of a specific act. Indeed, the section of The National Defense Authorization Act under question here is called the Declaration of War. Salon

This language which would codify into federal law a definition of the enemy that the Obama administration has adopted in defending against lawsuits filed by Guantanamo Bay detainees, would supplant the existing military force authorization that Congress passed overwhelmingly on Sept. 14, 2001. It instead named the enemy as the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks. NYT

Inside the Pentagon officials make the case that rather than using Bin Laden's death as a justification for withdrawal, the United States should continue the current strategy in Afghanistan to secure additional gains and to further pressure the Taliban to come to the bargaining table for negotiations on political reconciliation. NYT

Critics say provisions in the bill are tantamount to a congressional declaration of war that could give the president broad new powers over private business and government spending. WSJ

In a joint letter to Congress, about two dozen groups - including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights - contended that the proposal amounted to an open-ended grant of authority to the executive branch, legitimizing an unending war from Yemen to Somalia and beyond. NYT

"This monumental legislation--with a large-scale and practically irrevocable delegation of war power from Congress to the President--could commit the United States to a worldwide war without clear enemies, without any geographical boundaries (the use of military force within the United States could be permitted), and without any boundary relating to time or specific objective to be achieved," the letter read. ACLU

"Unlike the AUMF that authorized the Afghanistan War and the pursuit of Osama bin Laden, the proposed new Declaration of War does not cite any specific harm, such as the 9/11 attacks, or specific threat of harm to the United States. It appears to be stating that the United States is at war wherever terrorism suspects reside, regardless of whether there is any danger to the United States." ACLU

"If Congress broadly turns over to the President the power that Article I of the Constitution provides to Congress to declare war, it very likely will never get the power back. The broad terms of the proposed new Declaration of War could last for decades." ACLU

Whether Congress realizes it or not, the proposed new Declaration of War would authorize the President to use the United States military against countries such as Somalia, Iran, or Yemen, or send the American military into any of the scores of countries where suspected terrorists reside, which include not only nearly all Middle East, African, and Asian countries, but also European countries and Canada--and of course, the United States itself," said the letter. ACLU

In recent years, some critics of the government's counterterrorism efforts have argued that the 2001 Authorization for Military Force, or AUMF, wasn't intended to provide open-ended authority for war. WSJ

http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/179386.html
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

>>> Global Gulag Media & Forum <<<

Offline yon

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 474
I wonder if there are any provisions for more TSA agents?
eliyah.com, yrm.org, bibletruth.cc, nazarite.net, watchmanscry.com - halleluyahscriptures.com

Ezekiel 33:25

"Therefore say to them, ‘Thus says Yahweh Elohim,

 “You eat meat with the blood in it, lift up your eyes to your idols as you shed blood. Should you then possess the land?"

charrington

  • Guest
House Gets Ready to Vote on New Worldwide War Bill ??????
« Reply #4 on: May 16, 2011, 11:26:19 PM »
Congress ready to vote on worldwide war bill; it is a provision buried inside the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would enable the US to use military force anywhere in the world (including within the US) in search of "terrorists"


As we blogged last week, a hugely important provision for Congress to authorize a new worldwide war has been tucked away inside the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The bill was marked up by members of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) last Wednesday that poured into Thursday morning (2:45 a.m. to be exact).

A couple of minutes past midnight, Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) offered an amendment to strike Sec. 1034 — the new authorization for worldwide war provision — from the NDAA. Visibly angry that such a large sweeping provision had not yet had any public hearing whatsoever, he vigorously characterized it as a very broad declaration of war.

Rep. Garamendi was very concerned by the limitless geographic boundaries of the provision. Essentially, it would enable the U.S. to use military force anywhere in the world (including within the U.S.) in search of terrorists.

He also alluded to the idea that the HASC might not have proper jurisdiction over such a provision in the first place, suggesting that it would be an issue for the House Foreign Affairs Committee to take up. Clearly, he was beyond troubled by the fact that this markup was the very first time either committee has discussed the provision.

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) was the only member to speak in support of Sec. 1034 of the NDAA. Interestingly enough he didn't reply to the declaration of war charge by Rep. Garamendi.

In defense of Sec. 1034, and in opposition of the amendment, Rep. Thornberry said the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) of 2001 was hastily written and it is no longer responsive to the threat Americans face from terrorists today. He said the provision in the NDAA updates the 2001 AUMF and it is an especially good time to address it in light of the capturing and killing of Osama bin Laden.

Debate on the Rep. Garamendi's amendment ended when he withdrew it, and declared that he plans to introduce it again on the House floor where he expects a fully engaged debate.

So, while a new authorization for worldwide war has had its first public debate, it unfortunately only lasted a hair over 10 minutes and occurred after midnight.

Though it is a very troubling expansion of war authority, it has been lingering for more than three years as a “sleeper provision,” and it is finally getting the attention of some members of Congress. We hope that further debate in Congress in the weeks ahead will allow for a more in-depth examination of unchecked authority to wage worldwide war, and what the outcomes of such a provision will yield.

Stay engaged — you can help now by telling your representative to oppose any new and expanded war authority. The debate over the N...

Continued...

Protean

  • Guest
Re: House Gets Ready to Vote on New Worldwide War Bill ??????
« Reply #5 on: May 17, 2011, 12:01:02 AM »
Let's make those imperialist war crimes legal shall we?

"The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of
human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a
way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere,
or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might
otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and
hence, in the long run, too intelligent. Even when weapons
of war are not actually destroyed, their manufacture is still
a convenient way of expending labour power without producing
anything that can be consumed."
~George Orwell's 1984

1984 in PDF (free download)
http://www.planetebook.com/1984.asp

Offline Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,269
    • end times and current events
Re: House Gets Ready to Vote on New Worldwide War Bill ??????
« Reply #6 on: May 17, 2011, 07:23:57 AM »
Eastasia, Oceania, Eurasia does names really matter? WE ARE AT WAR!!!!! Print money and make boots
HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship ;)

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Re: House Gets Ready to Vote on New Worldwide War Bill ??????
« Reply #7 on: May 17, 2011, 07:48:57 AM »


  I have told you for years here--WE ARE THE NWO's ARMY.

  We must lick the Queen's boots.
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline Vinyard

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
    • Make $500 on FaceBook
Re: House Gets Ready to Vote on New Worldwide War Bill ??????
« Reply #8 on: May 17, 2011, 08:59:25 AM »
This is NOT coming as a shock to me. I've known for over a year that they're ready to start world war 3. I've seen the world in a lot of trouble lately, revolutions, protests, wars, tensions etc etc. The elites are ready to pull the last strings so they can have an excuse for a new world order.
" Some say they expect Illuminati take my body to sleep
N***** at the party with they shotties just as rowdy as me
Before I flee computer chips I gotta deal wit brothas flippin'
I don't see no Devils bleedin' only black blood drippin' "

Tupac Shakur

Offline Scarbo

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 854
Re: House Gets Ready to Vote on New Worldwide War Bill ??????
« Reply #9 on: May 17, 2011, 10:24:52 AM »
Nazification complete.

RP should filibuster this one.

Offline endof

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,709
Re: House Gets Ready to Vote on New Worldwide War Bill ??????
« Reply #10 on: May 17, 2011, 10:32:10 AM »
we live under nazi's. The nazi's were never beaten.

The takeovers happen.

Offline TonkaTim

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 438
1 SEC. 1034 [Log #215]. AFFIRMATION OF ARMED CONFLICT
2 WITH AL-QAEDA, THE TALIBAN, AND ASSOCI-
3 ATED FORCES.
4 Congress affirms that—
5 (1) the United States is engaged in an armed
6 conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated
7 forces and that those entities continue to pose a
8 threat to the United States and its citizens, both do-
9 mestically and abroad;
10 (2) the President has the authority to use all
11 necessary and appropriate force during the current
12 armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and asso-
13 ciated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use
14 of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C.
15 1541 note);
16 (3) the current armed conflict includes nations,
17 organization, and persons who—
18 (A) are part of, or are substantially sup-
19 porting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated
20 forces that are engaged in hostilities against the
21 United States or its coalition partners; or
22 (B) have engaged in hostilities or have di0
23 rectly supported hostilities in aid of a nation,
24 organization, or person described in subpara25
graph (A); and

1 (4) the President’s authority pursuant to the
2 Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law
3 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority
4 to detain belligerents, including persons described in
5 paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.


What exactly is "associated forces"?

I've been looking for a legal definition specifically in this context, everything I find seems to lead me to the definition of "Enemy combatant" which is so broad it is almost undefinable.

Does it mean associated with al Qaeda & the Taliban?

or, 

Does it means people deemed hostile by association?

Such as maybe:
Oathkeepers
Wearechange.org
Campaign for Liberty
NRA
local church group
or whatever group the ABC's put on a  list?


Considering all the hoopla over domestic "tewwowist".  --->wing extwemists, etc.....

What the hell does "associated forces" really mean?

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
ACLU: National Defense Authorization Act permits ‘worldwide war without end’
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/16/aclu-national-defense-bill-authorizes-worldwide-war-without-end/
By Eric W. Dolan
Monday, May 16th, 2011 -- 8:57 pm

 


A little noticed provision in the House Armed Services Committee's National Defense Authorization Act would authorize the United States to use military force anywhere there are terrorism suspects, including within the U.S. itself, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

Section 1034 was added to the bill [PDF] by the committee's chairman, Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA).

"Congress may soon vote on a new declaration of worldwide war without end, and without clear enemies," the ACLU warned in a statement. "A 'sleeper provision' deep inside defense bills pending before Congress could become the single biggest hand-over of unchecked war authority from Congress to the executive branch in modern American history."

The only opposition to the provision has come from Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA), who offered an amendment to strike Section 1034 while the House Armed Services Committee was reviewing the bill. The committee passed the National Defense Authorization Act by a 60 to 1 vote -- without the proposed amendment -- with Garamendi as the sole dissenter.

Garamendi said he plans to introduce the amendment again on the House floor, where debate on the bill will begin the week of May 23.

"President Obama has not sought new war authority," the ACLU said. "In fact, his administration has made clear that it believes it already has all of the authority that it needs to fight terrorism."

"But Congress is considering monumental new legislation that would grant the president – and all presidents after him – sweeping new power to make war almost anywhere and everywhere."

Garamendi said the National Defense Authorization Act also extends the war in Afghanistan, delays the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and furthers billions of dollars in wasteful Pentagon spending.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline WarChest

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 464
  • I lift their veil of ignorance and see the truth
    • http://www.myspace.com/warchest_nc
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/05/congress-proposes-bill-to-allow.html


Tuesday, May 17, 2011

A hugely important provision for Congress to authorize a new worldwide war has been tucked away inside the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The bill was marked up by members of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) last Wednesday that poured into Thursday morning (2:45 a.m. to be exact).

A couple of minutes past midnight, Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) offered an amendment to strike Sec. 1034 — the new authorization for worldwide war provision — from the NDAA. Visibly angry that such a large sweeping provision had not yet had any public hearing whatsoever, he vigorously characterized it as a very broad declaration of war.

Rep. Garamendi was very concerned by the limitless geographic boundaries of the provision. Essentially, it would enable the U.S. to use military force anywhere in the world (including within the U.S.) in search of terrorists.


We live in very dangerous times brothers. All of us would be subject to this treason.
If a man were to know at the end of this days business there would come. But, it suffices to know that that the day will end and the end  be known.
If we meet again well then we’ll smile and if not, well then this parting was well made.
Col. Jason Rhodes USMC

Offline Nailer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,448
If I remember correctly the Bill also gives obama power to declare war without congress approval in other words leaving congress out of the picture making  obama a dictator.
I am a realist that is slightly conservative yet I have some republican demeanor that can turn democrat when I feel the urge to flip independant.
 
The truth shall set you free, if not a 45ACP round will do the trick.. HEHE

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341



  If we were a free country, we would ask for the resignations of all those that voted for this and are associated with this Nazi bill.  And if they were true Americans THEY WOULD GLADLY RESIGN.  ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE.  THESE SCUMBAGS DON'T WORK FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ANYMORE.  THEY WORK FOR THE QUEEN AND THE ROTHSCUMS!!!!

 
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline Effie Trinket

  • member
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2,293
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/05/congress-proposes-bill-to-allow.html


Tuesday, May 17, 2011

A hugely important provision for Congress to authorize a new worldwide war has been tucked away inside the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The bill was marked up by members of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) last Wednesday that poured into Thursday morning (2:45 a.m. to be exact).

A couple of minutes past midnight, Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) offered an amendment to strike Sec. 1034 — the new authorization for worldwide war provision — from the NDAA. Visibly angry that such a large sweeping provision had not yet had any public hearing whatsoever, he vigorously characterized it as a very broad declaration of war.

Rep. Garamendi was very concerned by the limitless geographic boundaries of the provision. Essentially, it would enable the U.S. to use military force anywhere in the world (including within the U.S.) in search of terrorists.


We live in very dangerous times brothers. All of us would be subject to this treason.

Anyone that read the official document from the Pentagon called "Defense Mapping for Future Operations" could have seen that this was exactly what they had already intended all the way back to at least 1995 (the year of the document):

http://replay.web.archive.org/20090109172506/http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/defensemapping.pdf

It details using satellites to map out the United States for the "digital battlefield" because the military industrial complex knew that it would eventually become a literal battleground as part of their coup to destroy America.  Make no mistake, unless we can stop it, the U.S. WILL become like Iraq.  They are in full spectrum final overthrow mode right now.

Offline Effie Trinket

  • member
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2,293
Want to see what this is about?  Take a look at this:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/20/INRG1GCFBT.DTL



U.S. not prepared for Mumbai-like terror attacks
John Arquilla
Sunday, November 21, 2010


It took the 10 terrorists just 10 minutes to overwhelm Mumbai's defenses when they struck in November 2008. They were organized in five two-man teams, and the first waded into the crowd at one of India's biggest railway stations, firing AK-47s and tossing grenades. Soon more than 50 people were dead, a hundred more wounded. While this was going on, three other teams got out of cabs in other parts of the city and walked into two luxury hotels and a swanky restaurant, letting loose with guns and grenades. A fifth team stormed a Jewish community center, killing people and taking hostages.

After the initial wave of attacks, most of the Lashkar-e-Taiba hit men moved on before the police tactical units arrived, and soon five more targets had been struck, including a hospital. Bombs left by the terrorists at other points in the city as they moved around also began going off. It would take Indian law enforcement and military elements three days to bring an end to the crisis, by which time the toll of dead and wounded had reached almost 500.

Today, the concept of attacks by small teams at several sites simultaneously - what I have called "swarm" tactics - has caught on among terrorists. This month alone, we have seen such methods employed in the simultaneous bombings in Baghdad, where over 400 were killed, and in Karachi, Pakistan, two weeks ago, where small teams waged gun battles while a truck bomb went off at a major police installation. Recent intelligence revelations have gone further, suggesting that al Qaeda is planning to swarm cities in France and Germany in the same manner. And there is another hard truth: The next Mumbai-, Baghdad- or Karachi-style attacks could happen in San Francisco. Because, for all these warning signs, there is little evidence that our nation has made effective defensive preparations against assaults of this sort.

Our military's Northern Command, responsible for dealing swiftly with major terrorist attacks on American cities, remains largely wedded to the notion of responding by being able to move a brigade-size force - about 3,000 troops - where it's needed in a day or so. This is too much, too late when it comes to trying to counter small teams attacking a city at several points simultaneously.

Instead of this big, bulky approach, planners should aim at being able to deploy many small teams within minutes. This means giving a lot of attention, training and resources to local law enforcement and other first responders. It means doing simple things like providing more small-arms practice for all police. They don't have to become SWAT-like master snipers to take down terrorists - incremental improvements in a patrolman's already strong weapons-handling skills will pay huge dividends.

I recommend the notion of building a swarming capacity of our own. Police, military and other responders should be prepared to seize control from the terrorists at or near the outset of any incident, wherever it might take place.

The military should be preparing in fresh ways to back up the local first line of defense against Mumbai-style terror strikes. A good step would be to break up the brigade-size reaction force into, say, 50 platoon-size (40 to 50 soldiers each) detachments, then disperse them across the country close to major urban centers, within less than an hour's reach of any attack site. Between these first and second responders, a dense network of counterterrorist nodes would be ready at all times, all over the country.

This is certainly the idea that has guided improvements in Indian counterterrorism over the past two years and that is starting to animate German, French and British efforts. The Israelis have long operated in this manner as well. The Saudis also have shown great skill in developing counter-swarming commando teams in their hard fight against al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

Our allies are thus becoming increasingly well prepared to cope with what's coming. Why aren't we? Certainly not for lack of understanding. In meetings with local police chiefs and state-level Department of Homeland Security officials from around the country over the past two years, I learned they clearly grasp the nature of the Mumbai-style threat and see an urgent need to prepare better for it.

But these insights have not, for the most part, bubbled up to the tops of the gargantuan Defense and Homeland Security hierarchies that oversee them. Up there, the very idea of a locally led, network-style solution to the coming terrorist swarm is seen primarily as a threat to centralized control rather than as the most appropriate response to a complex new security challenge.

So in all likelihood, the terrorists will continue preparing to mount small-scale swarming assaults along the lines of the Mumbai model. We can't count on detecting or pre-empting all of them. In the wake of such an event, it should be expected that networks of armed Americans would spring up on their own to deter or counter terrorist swarms. Indeed, many in the Tea Party are already calling for the passage of enabling "firearms freedom" acts.

Tea Party favorites would probably sympathize with this self-help view as well. For example, Sen.-elect Rand Paul stated during his campaign that he intended to "fight all attempts at gun control." Sarah Palin's protege in the Alaska Senate race, Joe Miller, had a campaign event last July in which his supporters marched behind a Hummer openly carrying assault weapons.

All of which suggests that the American people are likely to act on their own if government doesn't protect them against the kind of threat that is so clearly looming.

If we fail to act in the face of this swarm warning, the only uncertainties remaining will be about whether the damage done by such attacks is grave or catastrophic.

Let's do something before it comes to this.

John Arquilla teaches in the special operations program at the Naval Postgraduate School, and is author of "Worst Enemy: The Reluctant Transformation of the American Military." Send your feedback to us through our online form at SFGate.com/chronicle/submissions/#1.

Offline Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,802
    • GlobalGulag.com
House Passes Authority for Worldwide War
Sam Milgrom
ACLU

The House just passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), including a provision to authorize worldwide war, which has no expiration date and will allow this president — and any future president — to go to war anywhere in the world, at any time, without further congressional authorization. The new authorization wouldn’t even require the president to show any threat to the national security of the United States. The American military could become the world’s cop, and could be sent into harm’s way almost anywhere and everywhere around the globe.

Before the vote, the House debated an amendment that would have struck the worldwide war provision. That amendment was introduced by a bipartisan group of representatives: Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). Given the enormity of the proposed law, you’d expect the House to debate the amendment to strike it extensively, but that’s not what happened. The amendment was debated for a total of 20 minutes. That’s right. Twenty minutes to debate whether Congress should hand the executive branch sweeping worldwide war authority.
Read more » http://www.activistpost.com/2011/05/house-passes-authority-for-worldwide.html
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

>>> Global Gulag Media & Forum <<<

Offline Rebelitarian

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,991

Offline decepticon

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,489
  • Bury the past, rob us blind, leave nothing behind.
WW III i told ya. all they are doing is rubber stamping, we are already at war around world. have been for almost 10 years now if you haven't been counting. in a year or two we will have been at war longer than WW I and II combined.

10 YEARS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ron Paul 2012...because Liberty is too big to fail.
Beat Bailout Barry!!!!!!!!

Offline Rebelitarian

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,991
It's only going to be a matter of time that these kakistocracies will ally themselves against the USA at some point if there aren't plans to do so already.

Not that our government-media complex will ever tell us.   :(

No they'll tell us about al-CIAda and other "terror cell" groups.   ::)

Offline Vinyard

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
    • Make $500 on FaceBook
WW III i told ya. all they are doing is rubber stamping, we are already at war around world. have been for almost 10 years now if you haven't been counting. in a year or two we will have been at war longer than WW I and II combined.

10 YEARS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No. Don't ask me how I know this but World War 3 (which is in its early stages now... just not recognized as WW3 in MSM) will last around 4 - 5 years. But the loss of human life will be devastating and truly shocking. I'm only 18 years old and I have information many people here don't. I've already started digging a hole 4ft x 4ft where I will store food. Just need one of 'em machines that can create water from air.
" Some say they expect Illuminati take my body to sleep
N***** at the party with they shotties just as rowdy as me
Before I flee computer chips I gotta deal wit brothas flippin'
I don't see no Devils bleedin' only black blood drippin' "

Tupac Shakur

Offline Kilika

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,762
  • Thank you Jesus!
If I remember correctly the Bill also gives obama power to declare war without congress approval in other words leaving congress out of the picture making  obama a dictator.

Actually, what they are doing is renewing something that Congress passed back in 2001. It's not anything new.

Quote
The renewed bill, however, makes no reference to the 9/11 attackers and some critics have called it "the first full-scale declaration of war by the U.S. since World War II," since it makes no reference to the capturing of parties guilty of a specific act. Indeed, the section of The National Defense Authorization Act under question here is called the Declaration of War.

So they have tweeked it, as usual, to suit their current means. Still doesn't make it constitutional.
"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."
1 Timothy 6:10 (KJB)

Offline decepticon

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,489
  • Bury the past, rob us blind, leave nothing behind.
No. Don't ask me how I know this but World War 3 (which is in its early stages now... just not recognized as WW3 in MSM) will last around 4 - 5 years. But the loss of human life will be devastating and truly shocking. I'm only 18 years old and I have information many people here don't. I've already started digging a hole 4ft x 4ft where I will store food. Just need one of 'em machines that can create water from air.

yeah, i guess everything thats happened over the last 10 years will be the build-up. i just don't know if you can call it war anymore, it's really just conquest, occupation, empire building. it is constant war though. what do you think it's going to be us/euro vs the east ?
Ron Paul 2012...because Liberty is too big to fail.
Beat Bailout Barry!!!!!!!!