WH continues lying about inherent treason in NDAA with more insane legal jargon

Author Topic: WH continues lying about inherent treason in NDAA with more insane legal jargon  (Read 7563 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Jordan

  • Guest
The White House released rules Tuesday evening waiving the most controversial piece of the new military detention law, and exempting U.S. citizens, as well as other broad categories of suspected terrorists.

Indefinite military detention of Americans and others was granted in the defense authorization bill President Barack Obama signed just before Christmas, sparking a storm of anger from civil libertarians on the left and right.

The new rules -- which deal with Section 1022 of the law -- are aimed at soothing many of their gravest concerns, an administration official said. Those concerns are led by the possibility that a law that grants the president authority to jail Americans without trial in Guantanamo Bay based on secret evidence could easily be abused.

"It is important to recognize that the scope of the new law is limited," says a fact sheet released by the White House, focusing on that worry. "Section 1022 does not apply to U.S. citizens, and the President has decided to waive its application to lawful permanent residents arrested in the United States."

It also addresses a concern of the White House and advocates of civil law enforcement, insisting that even if a suspect is transfered to the military, the person can be shifted back if the administration believes it is important for national security.

"An individual required to be held in military custody under Section 1022 may be returned to law enforcement custody for criminal trial," the White House summary says. "In addition, Section 1022 does not change the FBI’s authorities to respond to terrorism threats and these procedures do not apply to any individuals held in the custody of the Department of Defense, state and local law enforcement agencies acting under their authorities, or a foreign government."

Advocates for liberties will likely find the new rules for implementing reassuring, at least while President Obama is in office. But one of their big complaints with his signing of the law is that his policies only last so long as he is in office, and they will likely step up attempts to repeal it.

The rules also set out for the first time how they will be implemented, specifying that if local law enforcers suspect they've grabbed someone who would be covered under the law, they have to notify the Department of Justice. While law enforcers continue their work, the notification sets off an extensive review culminating in a decision by the attorney general, secretary of state, secretary of defense, secretary of homeland security, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the director of national intelligence.

"The procedures ensure that an individual will be transferred from civilian to military custody only after a thorough evaluation of all of the relevant facts, based on the considered judgment of the President’s senior national security team, and not a rigid statutory requirement that does not account for the unique facts and circumstances of each case," the White House fact sheet says.

The categories of people exempted by the rules:

    When placing a foreign country’s nationals or residents in military custody will impede counterterrorism cooperation;

    When a foreign government indicates that it will not extradite or transfer suspects to the U.S. if the suspects may be placed in military custody;

    When an individual is a U.S. lawful permanent resident who is arrested in this country or arrested by a federal agency on the basis of conduct taking place in this country;

    When an individual has been arrested by a federal agency in the U.S. on charges other than terrorism offenses (unless such individual is subsequently charged with one or more terrorism offenses and held in federal custody in connection with those offenses);

    When an individual has been arrested by state or local law enforcement, pursuant to state or local authority, and is transferred to federal custody;

    When transferring an individual to military custody could interfere with efforts to secure an individual’s cooperation or confession; or

    When transferring an individual to military custody could interfere with efforts to conduct joint trials with co-defendants who are ineligible for military custody or as to whom a determination has already been made to proceed with a prosecution in a federal or state court.

Three of the bill's lead Republican sponsons, Sens. John McCain (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), cautioned that Obama may be undercutting their intentions for the measure.

"Although we have not been able to fully examine all the details of these new regulations, they raise significant concerns that will require a hearing in the Senate Armed Services Committee," they said in a joint statement. "We are particularly concerned that some of these regulations may contradict the intent of the detainee provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act passed by Congress last year."

All three senators were adamant that all terrorism suspects -- American citizens or otherwise -- should be taken into military custody.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/28/indefinite-military-deten_n_1308129.html

Jordan

  • Guest
So --- according to this Forbes article there is no change to the rules for how U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism are detained. It only waives the mandatory military detention of various categories of people (legal non-citizen permanent residents, etc.), but the President retains the right to implement military detention as he sees fit to foster U.S. security and interests abroad.

The headline in the Huffpo is a total fabrication.




The National Defense Authorization Act’s (NDAA) controversial military custody provisions have been largely nullified through implementing procedures ordered by President Obama.  The President, through Presidential Policy Directive 14 has crafted a broad set of waivers which allow domestic law enforcement agencies to easily abrogate the military custody requirements found in Section 1022.

As a refresher, Section 1022 of the NDAA requires “the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person” who is “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.”  Person, as described in the statute means one who is “determined 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 [is determined to] have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.”  Under the plain terms of the statute the “requirement to detain a person in military custody…does not extend to citizens of the United States.”

Ben Wittes, writing at Lawfare nicely sums up the President’s actions, concluding: “The President has–rightly in my view–read this law virtually out of existence. This is not a breach of faith with Congress, which in negotiations with the administration, so watered the provision down that, as signed, it reasonably lends itself to this reading.”  The President’s waivers are responsive to the needs of law enforcement who according to The Washington Post “had feared that the law on sending alleged al-Qaeda members to military custody would inhibit their ability to get suspects to cooperate.”  Beyond meeting the needs of law enforcement, PDD-14 specifies that the implementing procedures are designed to ensure that a “rigid, inflexible requirement to place suspected terrorists into military custody” does not “undermine the national security interests of the United States, compromising our ability to collect intelligence and incapacitate dangerous individuals.”

Per the terms of the NDAA, the President is authorized to waive the military custody requirement when doing so is “in the national security interests of the United States.”  The President has flipped the NDAA’s requirement that one be held in military custody pending disposition of their status on its head, instead issuing a waiver at the outset for a number of specific situations that he has deemed trigger the national security interests of the United States.  Specifically, the President has determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to forgo military custody when:

    PDD-14 II. B. 1.- Placing a foreign country’s nationals or residents in military custody will impede counterterrorism cooperation;
    PDD-14 II. B.2.- A foreign government indicates that it will not extradite or transfer suspects to the United States if the suspects may be placed in military custody;
    PDD-14 II. B.3.- An individual is a U.S. lawful permanent resident who is arrested in this country or arrested by a federal agency on the basis of conduct taking place in this country;
    PDD-14 II. B.4.- An individual has been arrested by a federal agency in the United States on charges other than terrorism offenses;
    PDD-14 II. B.5.- An individual has been arrested by state or local law enforcement, pursuant to state or local authority, and is transferred to federal custody;
    PDD-14 II. B.6.- Transferring an individual to military custody could interfere with efforts to secure an individual’s cooperation or confession;
    PDD-14 II. B.7.- Transferring an individual to military custody could interfere with efforts to conduct joint trials with co-defendants who are ineligible for military custody or as to whom a determination has already been made to proceed with a prosecution in a federal or state court.

While these all seem to be prudent judgments, the blanket waivers under B.3. and B.5. do not, on their face, have anything to do with “the national security interests” of the United States.  B.3. merely treats a lawful permanent resident like a U.S. citizen, but the national security imperative animating that is lost on me.  It is certainly not the case that lawful permanent residents don’t join al Qaeda and engage in acts of terrorism (see here for example).  Now don’t misunderstand me, I’m not saying this waiver isn’t a good idea, I’m merely noting that it doesn’t fall within the requirement that a waiver be “in the national security interests of the United States” unless national security interests is broadly construed.  Similarly, the blanket waiver under B.5. for those who are arrested by state or local law enforcement and transferred to federal custody also does not fit within “the national security interests” provisions of the statute.  The other waivers (B.1.,2,4,6 and 7) all touch on matters traditionally associated with national security: B.1. and B.2. speak to foreign relations, B.6., and B.7. speak to intelligence collection or ongoing trials.  B.4. is confusing at first glance, but probably contemplates a circumstance where one would fit within the terms of Section 1022, but would not be charged with a terrorism offense, perhaps anticipating a pretextual arrest for national security purposes like we’ve seen with immigration offenses.

As for B.3. and B.5., I find these difficult to square with the requirement that the waiver be “in the national security interests of the United States.”  Nothing in the language of either waiver triggers the type of circumstances traditionally associated with national security interests (no foreign relations issues, no intelligence issues, no ongoing investigations or counterterrorism cooperation issues).

 Thus, for these waivers to be valid, we must conclude that the President is entitled to determine, without the benefit of any facts, that military custody is simply never in the national security interests of the United States when a person captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF happens to be a lawful permanent resident or someone arrested by local authorities.  There may be a national security interest buried in those waivers, but I’m not seeing it.  Of course, that fact won’t have much of an impact, as this is a matter that will have to be fought out between Congress and the President.  If last year’s fight over the NDAA is a guide, I don’t think anyone has the stomach for a rematch.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2012/02/29/how-president-obama-plans-to-implement-the-ndaas-military-custody-provisions/

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated

The categories of people exempted by the rules:

    When placing a foreign country’s nationals or residents in military custody will impede counterterrorism cooperation;

    When a foreign government indicates that it will not extradite or transfer suspects to the U.S. if the suspects may be placed in military custody;

    When an individual is a U.S. lawful permanent resident who is arrested in this country or arrested by a federal agency on the basis of conduct taking place in this country;

    When an individual has been arrested by a federal agency in the U.S. on charges other than terrorism offenses (unless such individual is subsequently charged with one or more terrorism offenses and held in federal custody in connection with those offenses);

    When an individual has been arrested by state or local law enforcement, pursuant to state or local authority, and is transferred to federal custody;

    When transferring an individual to military custody could interfere with efforts to secure an individual’s cooperation or confession; or

    When transferring an individual to military custody could interfere with efforts to conduct joint trials with co-defendants who are ineligible for military custody or as to whom a determination has already been made to proceed with a prosecution in a federal or state court.


That is not an exemption of US Citizens from being mass murdered and enslaved like jews in nazi germany or japanese in america in the 1930's/1940's or russians in russia under stalin or chinese in china under mao, etc.

HERE IS WHAT AN EXEMPTION IS...

ALL US CITIZENS ARE PROTECTED BY THE US CONSTITUTION FROM A FOREIGN USURPTION OF QUASI-GOVERNMENT ENTITIES THAT SEEK TO USE 'TERRORISM' AS AN EXCUSE TO TORTURE, RAPE, MURDER, ENSLAVE, ILLEGALLY DETAIN, ILLEGALLY QUESTION, ILLEGALLY BEHAVIORAL MODIFY, AND ILLEGALLY SURVEIL ANY US CITIZEN EVER. THOSE SEEKING TO ILLEGALLY DETAIN US CITIZENS ARE HEREBY KNOWN AS A NATIONAL SECURITY THEAT TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

THERE IS YOUR FRICKING EXCEPTION. HOW TOTALLY INSANE ARE THESE MORONS BEGGING TO RAPE GRANDMA AND ENSLAVE LITTLE JIMMY UNDER THE GUISE OF PENTAGON CONTROLLED AND MANUFACTURED 'TERRORISM'.
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

Jordan

  • Guest
Exactly - another circle jerk.

Offline SUPREMEMASTER

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,830
  • Commander
    • http://www.activismoverdrive.comze.com
I framed that into a screenshot:











Download image for highest quality.



Dig: I should probably call into the Alex's radio broadcast some time and repeat what you just said live on air.
Automatic User Post Signature:
The message has to be put out in the right way.
Website Still Needs to be updated |ActivismOverDrive.comze.net|

Jordan

  • Guest
Latest from RT
« Reply #5 on: March 02, 2012, 09:28:38 AM »
http://youtu.be/pKUqSQehDlo

Obama's "waiver" and new "policy directive" released yesterday in response to growing NDAA outrage unfortunately is a PR ploy, and does little to mitigate the real danger to our civil liberties posed by the NDAA's indefinite detention provisions.

Naomi Wolf Op Ed on NDAA being treason:

NDAA critics say that it enables ordinary US citizens to be treated like 'enemy combatants' in Guantánamo. Photograph: Paul J Richards/AFP/Getty Images

Yes, the worst things you may have heard about the National Defense Authorization Act, which has formally ended 254 years of democracy in the United States of America, and driven a stake through the heart of the bill of rights, are all really true. The act passed with large margins in both the House and the Senate on the last day of last year – even as tens of thousands of Americans were frantically begging their representatives to secure Americans' habeas corpus rights in the final version.

It does indeed – contrary to the many flatout-false form letters I have seen that both senators and representatives sent to their constituents, misleading them about the fact that the NDAA destroys their due process rights. Under the act, anyone can be described as a 'belligerent". As the New American website puts it,

    "Subsequent clauses (Section 1022, for example) unlawfully give the president the absolute and unquestionable authority to deploy the armed forces of the United States to apprehend and to indefinitely detain those suspected of threatening the security of the 'homeland'. In the language of this legislation, these people are called 'covered persons'.

    "The universe of potential 'covered persons' includes every citizen of the United States of America. Any American could one day find himself or herself branded a 'belligerent' and thus subject to the complete confiscation of his or her constitutional civil liberties and nearly never-ending incarceration in a military prison."

And with a new bill now being introduced to make it a crime to protest in a way that disrupts any government process – or to get close to anyone with secret service protection – the push to legally lock down the United Police States is in full force.

Overstated? Let's be clear: the NDAA grants the president the power to kidnap any American anywhere in the United States and hold him or her in prison forever without trial. The president's own signing statement, incredibly, confirmed that he had that power. As I have been warning since 2006: there is not a country on the planet that you can name that has ever set in place a system of torture, and of detention without trial, for an "other", supposedly external threat that did not end up using it pretty quickly on its own citizens.

And Guantánamo has indeed come home: Guantánamo is in our front yards now and our workplaces; it did not even take much more than half a decade. On 1 March, the NDAA will go into effect – if a judicial hearing scheduled for this week does not block it – and no one in America, no US citizen, will be safe from being detained indefinitely – in effect, "disappeared.".

As former Reagan official, now Ron Paul supporter, Bruce Fein points out, on 1 March, we won't just lose the bill of rights; we will lose due process altogether. We will be back at the place where we were, in terms of legal tradition, before the signing of the Magna Carta – when kings could throw people in prison at will, to rot there forever. If we had cared more about what was being done to brown people with Muslim names on a Cuban coastline, and raised our voices louder against their having been held without charge for years, or against their being tried in kangaroo courts called military tribunals, we might now be safer now from a new law mandating for us also the threat of abduction and fear of perpetual incarceration.

We didn't care, or we didn't care enough – and here we are. We acclimated, we got distracted, the Oscars were coming up … but the fake "battlefield" was brought home to us, now real enough. Though it is not "we" versus Muslims in this conflict; it is our very own government versus "us". As one of my Facebook community members remarked bitterly, of our House representatives, our Senate leaders and our president, "They hate our freedoms."

The NDAA is, in the words of Shahid Buttar of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, "the worst threat to civil liberties since COINTELPRO. It gives the government the power to presume guilt rather than innocence, and indefinitely imprison anyone accused of a 'belligerent act' or terror-related offense without trial." He points out that it gives future presidents the power to arrest their political critics. That may even be understating things: it is actually, in my view, the worst threat to civil liberty in the US since habeas corpus was last suspended, during the American civil war.

On a conference call for media last Friday, hosted by the cross-partisan BORDC (which now includes the 40,000 members of the American Freedom Campaign, which we had co-founded as a response to the warning in 2007 that America was facing a "fascist shift") and the right-leaning Tenth Amendment Foundation, we were all speaking the same language of fear for our freedom, even though our perspectives spanned the political spectrum. As the Tenth Amendment Foundation put it, we are a family with diverse views – and families know when it is time to put aside their differences. If there were ever a time to do so, it is now.
This grassroots effort is pushing hard in many places. Protests that included libertarians, progressives, Tea Party members and Occupy participants have been held nationwide in recent weeks. State legislators in Virginia, Tennessee, and Washington have also introduced bills to prevent state agencies from aiding in any detention operations that might be authorized by the NDAA. In other words, they are educating sheriffs and police to refuse to comply with the NDAA's orders. This presents an Orwellian or 1776-type scenario, depending upon your point of view, in which the federal government, or even the president, might issue orders to detain US citizens – which local sheriffs and police would be legally bound to resist.

What will happen next? I wrote recently that the US is experiencing something like a civil war, with only one side at this point – the corporatist side – aggressing. This grassroots, local-leader movement represents a defensive strategy in what is being now tacitly recognized as unprovoked aggression against an entire nation, and an entire people. (Here I should say, mindful of the warning issued to me by NYPD, which arrested me, to avoid saying anything that could be construed as "incitement to riot" and that I believe in nonviolent resistance.)

The local resistance to the police state goes further: midwestern cities, such as Chicago and Minneapolis, are considering "torture-free city" resolutions that would prohibit the torture which civil libertarians see as likely under a military detention regime expanded by the NDAA. (Bradley Manning's initial treatment in solitary confinement, for instance, met some Red Cross definitions of torture.)

But I am far more scared than hopeful, because nothing about the NDAA's legislative passage worked as democracy is supposed to work. Senator Dianne Feinstein, for instance, in spite of her proposed (defeated) amendment that could have defended due process more completely, has nonetheless not fought to repeal the law – even though her constituents in California would, no doubt, overwhelmingly support her in doing so. Huge majorities passed this bill into law – despite the fact that Americans across the spectrum were appalled and besieging their legislators. And this president nailed it to the table – even though his own constituency is up in arms about it.

History shows that at this point, there isn't much time to mount a defense: once the first few arrests take place, people go quiet. There is only one solution: organize votes loudly and publicly to defeat every single signer of this bill in November's general election. Then, once we have our Republic back and the rule of law, we can deal with the actual treason that this law represents.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/29/ndaa-danger-american-liberty