Author Topic: British Spy Obama/Soetoro signs illegal NDAA for NATO extermination of Americans  (Read 117941 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Brookings/AEI psychopaths brag about Continuity of Government acts of treason



http://www.continuityofgovernment.org/

The AEI-Brookings Continuity of Government Commission has released a mini-report on congressional continuity, "Continuity of Congress: Where We Are Eight Years After 9/11." Click here to read the minireport.

On July 2nd, 2009, the AEI-Brookings Continuity of Government Commission released its second report, Preserving Our Institutions - Presidential Succession. Click here for more information. To read the full report, click here.


In the News:

Norman Ornstein on swine flu, small planes entering restricted airspace, and problems with the Senate-confirmation process

Swine Flu highlights importance of improving continuity procedures

September 11th raised the possibility that foreign enemies might seriously disrupt the filling of vacancies in Congress, presidential succession, and achieving a quorum for the Court so much so that our basic institutions might not function in a normal constitutional manner. In the fall of 2002, the Continuity of Government Commission was launched to study and make recommendations for the continuity of our government institutions after a catastrophic attack.
----------------------------------------------------
Recent articles 

Recent opinion pieces
----------------------------------------------------

President Jimmy Carter is honorary chairman and Alan Simpson and David Pryor are the commission's co-chairmen. The commission consists of members who have served in government at the highest levels. Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute and Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution are senior counselors. The commission met twice in the fall of 2002 and issued a report on the Continuity of Congress in January 2003. It is joint American Enterprise Institute and Brookings Institution project, funded by the Carnegie, Hewlett, Packard, and MacArthur Foundations. For more information, see About the Commission.

Contact your Representative:
To write to your Representative, go to: http://www.house.gov/writerep/.

Relevant CRS Reports:


National Continuity Policy: A Brief Overview - Updated June 8, 2007

House Vacancies: Selected Proposals for Filling
Them After a Catastrophic Loss of Members - Updated June 3, 2004

Continuity of Government:
Current Federal Arrangements and the Future - Updated January 7, 2005

Continuity of Congress: Enacted and Proposed
Federal Statutes for Expedited Election to the
House in Extraordinary Circumstances -
Updated August 9, 2005

Continuity of Operations (COOP) in the Executive
Branch: Background and Issues for Congress -
Updated August 21, 2003

 Norman Ornstein speaks at press conference held by
Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) on March 20, 2002    
   
    
The Associated Press reports:"Capitol briefly evacuated, White House locked down"

On March 11, 2009 the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing to discuss the Feingold amendment.

On March 11, 2009, the New York Times published an article about Senator Russ Feingold's (D-WI) amendment to fill senate vacancies through special elections instead of gubernatorial appointments.

Norman Ornstein in his Roll Call article on February 25, 2009 and John Fortier in hisPolitico article on March 2, 2009 discuss issues of continuity in the context of the Feingold Amendment seeking to change the current Senate appointment process.

Senator Russ Feingold's "Statement on Introduction of a Constitutional Amendment Concerning Senate Vacancies," Thursday, January 29, 2009.

Norman Ornstein discusses the importance of continuity of Congress in his Roll Call article on January 28, 2009.

On December 23, 2008, USA Today reported that the Bush administration has been preparing comprehensive homeland security briefs to help avert potential crisis during the presidential transition.

In his Roll Call article on December 10, 2008, Norman Ornstein explains that the attacks in Mumbai should serve as yet another "wake-up call" for Congress to implement a continuity plan.

An article on presidential succession appeared in the Wall Street Journal on November 13, 2008.

A new National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive was issued on May 9, 2007.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) introduced S.1427, the Federal Emergency Managment Act of 2007 on May 17, 2007. It was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) introduced HR.540, the Presidential Succession Act of 2007 on January 17, 2007. It was referred to the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.       
 
       
       
        
September 9, 2009 • 9:00am - 10:30am
An Update on Congressional Continuity
American Enterprise Institute
1150 Seventeenth St., NW
Washington, DC 20036

July 2, 2009 • 9:00am - 12:00pm
Preserving Our Institutions - Presidential Succession
American Enterprise Institute
1150 Seventeenth St., NW
Washington, DC 20036

October 23, 2008 • 10:15am - 12:00pm
When Disaster Strikes: The Continuity of Our Elections
American Enterprise Institute
1150 Seventeenth St., NW
Washington, DC 20036

October 27, 2003 • 10:00am - 3:45pm
Hearing on Potential Reforms to the Presidential Succession System
Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Room SD-226

June 4, 2003 • 10:00am - 11:30am
Continuity of Congress After a Catastrophic Terrorist Attack
American Enterprise Institute
1150 Seventeenth St., NW
Washington, DC 20036

The Continuity of Government Commission issued its first report on Continuity of Congress at this press conference.

October 16, 2002 • 10:00am - 12:00pm
Second Commission Meeting
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036

September 23, 2002 • 10:00am - 4:00pm
First Commission Meeting
House Administration Committee
Longworth House Office Building
Room 1310

For more information please contact Jennifer Marsico [email protected]
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 Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Peter Dale Scott - Richard Cheney, Continuity of Government, and 9/11
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2978244787099383010
54:40  - 4 years ago

Peter Dale Scott presents a condensed version of the two chapters from his forthcoming book, "The Road to 9/11", that deal with the actions of Dick Cheney on the morning of 9/11, and a host of troubling contradictions on that day, in lecture form. Recorded on February 25, 2007. A great researcher comes through once again. This video is posted with the permission of www.911tv.org Please contact www.911tv.org for DVD copies of the entire 9/11 Accountability Conference. Please visit www.peterdalescott.net for more on Scott's work. Note: Since this lecture, a report indicating a much longer intercept time in the Payne Stewart case has been brought to Scott's attention; http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm Further Note: Following the Vancouver 9/11 Conference of July, 2007, Scott is agnostic on the intercept time of the Stewart jet.
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 brokenarrow

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 208
NDAA gets signed, and California's Open Carry ends in just 3 hours.

Coincidence?
Send lawyers, guns and money
The shit has hit the fan

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
NDAA, Whats Under The Hood? U.S. Citizens Deemed ‘The Enemy’ During Economic Collapse
FEMA Continuity of Government Plans Prep Total Takeover of Society,
Dispatching Military Domestically During Current Economic Collapse Emergency
http://yourdaddy.net/2011/12/22/ndaa-whats-under-the-hood-u-s-citizens-deemed-the-enemy-during-economic-collapse/
Posted on December 22, 2011 by notalemming

UPDATE: Government censors document revealing plans to wage war on Americans. READ HERE.

NOTE: Within an hour of posting this article and linking to the pertinent document, the feds at FBO.gov have pulled the link and implied that it was a classified posting. We believe this was public and of interest to American citizens, taxpayers and peoples of the world and are in the process re-establishing an archive link of the material. Obviously, however, this information is revealing and certain parties do not wish it to be widely known. If you believe this material is important, please archive it and share it with your contacts. In the meantime, here are links to many of the pages: Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4, Page 5, Page 6, Page 7, Page 8, Page 9, Page 10, Page 11

Infowars has discovered new FEMA documents that confirm information received from DoD sources that show military involvement in a FEMA-led takeover within the United States under partially-classified Continuity of Government (COG) plans. It involves not only operations for the relocation of COG personnel and key officials, population management, emergency communications and alerts but the designation of the American people as ‘enemies’ under a live military tracking system known as Blue Force Situational Awareness (BFSA).

Further, this Nov. 18, 2011 FEMA-released plan National Continuity Programs (NCP) Program and Mission Support Services (PAMSS) [PDF] linked at the FedBizOpps.gov website outlines a scenario that overlays with eerie accuracy the bigger picture sketched out by concurrent calls fortroops to keep order in the streets of places like New Orleans, as well as other bombshell documents like those released from KBR seeking to activate contracted staff for emergency detention centers and for services like fencing and barricades, as well as numerous agencies and think tankswho’ve prepared for civil unrest and economic breakdown in America.

Hold onto your seats. The plan for the takeover of the United States has not only been drafted, but activated. Our sources and independent research make this abundantly clear. Martial law scenarios preparing for a breakdown of order under the ongoing economic collapse are underway, even as pretexts for control are initiated in locales across the country. Bold individuals like Ron Paul have warned that dangerous legislation like the NDAA designate the American population as potential enemies. Now, there is more evidence this targeting of the people is sadly taking place.

A laundry list of operations organized under FEMA’s National Continuity Programs (NCP) provides a base of technical support for the deployment of national emergency plans and the logistical tracking of all personnel incorporated under what Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano has lovingly termed the big “federal family.

“Friendly” military and FEMA personnnel, along with their contracted employees and those of other federal agencies, will carry transponder ID badges, like those described here, to designate their “blue” inclusive status. As our military sources have confirmed, under the Blue Force Situational Awareness (BFSA) all other American citizens and civilians are designated under the “red” category and treated as an enemy or potential unfriendly. Throughout his past investigative work including witnessing numerous military drills, Alex Jones has also witnessed the technology and the use of this alarming code branding ordinary Americans as battlefield enemies. The plan includes drone and other high-tech tools to monitor and target individuals designated under the “enemy” status.

The military’s blue force tracking technology has been adopted since 2003 in Iraq and used in theaters like Afghanistan to quickly distinguish “Blue” friendlies (including U.S. forces and allies like tribal forces) from “Red” enemies. However, on the U.S. homeland battlefield, it is the American people who will be designated under “red,” whereas cleared occupying personnel are tracked as “blue” friendlies by their ID transponder badges. The designation was set-up to reduce “friendly fire” incidents.

Blue Force and other related programs like Geospatial Information Systems (GIS), Continuity Analysis and the Command, Control, Communications and Computing (C4) operations named in the document electronically track and verify the location and clearance of COG-related personnel, the usage of emergency shelter facilities and their components as well as the military’s friendly/enemy designations– creating a matrix for live monitoring and control coordinating with FEMA databases during martial law or national emergency scenarios.

For instance, FEMA acknowledges in its documents the use of Blue Force tracking systems and other geospatial information systems to monitor the capacity and usage of its facilities under the National Shelter System and other programs. Preparations for the orderly control of the masses have already been put into place.

In particular, the Mt. Weather Emergency Operations Center outside Washington, D.C. is empowered to “coordinate, track, and synchronize the relocation of key leadership and staff from the DHS and FEMA Emergency Relocation Groups (ERG) members to perform their essential functions” during a declared national emergency using the Blue Force and other related tracking programs managed under the established joint relocation operations control center and emergency relocation programs referenced in the document. Section 1.3.4 further details the minimum ID requirements for contractor employee identification and verification.
The FEMA National Shelter System (NSS) is a comprehensive, Web-based database created to support Federal, State and local government agencies and voluntary organizations responsible for Mass Care and Emergency Assistance. The FEMA NSS allows users to identify, track, analyze, and report on data for virtually any facility associated with the congregate care of people and/or household pets following a disaster.

FEMA has also outlined detailed support for its vast Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS), proscribed under Executive Order 13407 for the federal takeover of communications. It details the continuity of emergency communications and the issuance of warnings to the public, including public-private partnerships concerned with issuing alert messages through cellular providers– a program that only recently caused panic when it was publicly tested without forewarning in New Jersey. It is designated in the document under theCommercial Mobile Alerting System (CMAS).

As we have mentioned here and detailed in the past, this is part of larger COG government takeover– not part of any ordinary natural disaster response as the media has been told. The elite have initiated worldwide economic collapse and prepared their power-grabbing response as currencies and markets fall across the globe. All the experts we’ve talked to over the years concur with this basic analysis.

To put it simply: once the economic depression has sunken in completely, the population will willingly head in droves to government centers for basic requirements like food. As Henry Kissinger bluntly quipped, “Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.” FEMA’s response will in hinge, in part, on just that– encouraging people sign up for their own enslavement.
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 Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Globalists arguing about how many Americans they can exterminate, rape, torture with NDAA as if it is legal...



Detention Under the NDAA and the Limits of Analogy
http://opiniojuris.org/2011/12/31/detention-under-the-ndaa-and-the-limits-of-analogy/
by Kevin Jon Heller

My thanks to Marty and Steve for their fascinating and insightful posts (here and here) on the NDAA.  I have many thoughts about the Act, but I want to focus here on the idea that U.S. courts can and should analogize to detention in international armed conflict in order to determine what it means for a person to have “substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”  I note at the outset that Marty and Steve never mention international human rights law (IHRL), thus accepting — at least implicitly — two very controversial assumptions.  The first is that the United States is engaged in a global non-international armed conflict (NIAC) with al-Qaeda, such that the detention of any member of al-Qaeda anywhere in the world (except U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens apprehended in the U.S.) is, in fact, governed by the laws of war.  I have addressed the problems with that position ad nauseum (see, e.g., this post) and won’t repeat them here.  The second assumption is that, in situations of actual armed conflict, international humanitarian law (IHL) completely displaces IHRL with regard to detention authority.  That is a very controversial position, particularly in the context of NIAC, given that the only applicable IHL in NIAC is Common Article 3, which regulates detention but does not authorize it.  A strong case can thus be made that it is inappropriate to simply analogize to detention in IAC to determine the limits of detention in NIAC; the applicable rules may well come from IHRL — the concept of security detention, in particular — instead.  (For a discussion of the interplay between IHL and IHRL in NIAC, see this Chatham House report.)

Let’s put those issues aside, however, and focus on what it would mean to determine the limits of “substantial support” by reference to the rules of IHL that apply in IAC.  The first thing that needs to be emphasized is any such analogy is inherently speculative, because there is no concept of “substantial support” in international armed conflict.  There are simply prisoners of war (POWs) and civilians, whose detention is governed by different Geneva Conventions — GC III for POWs, GC IV for civilians.  Thus, as soon as Marty and Steve endorse (I think correctly) the DOJ position “that those who provide unwitting or insignificant support to the organizations identified in the AUMF are not subject to the AUMF detention authority,” we are already pushing the limits of analogy.  The only way to make sense of that statement is to assume (1) that we are talking about civilian detention under GC IV, because anyone who falls under GC III (members of the regular armed forces, volunteer corps, militias, etc.) is detainable at any time for any reason, even if they only thing he or she has ever done to “support” the armed forces is play the trumpet in an army band; and (2) that, under Article 42 of GC IV, unwitting or insignificant support can never make it “absolutely necessary” to detain a person for reasons of state security.  The analogy may still work (I’m inclined to think so), but we can see that even the most basic limit on detention under the “substantial support” requirement is anything but self-evident when analogized to IAC.  And we can see that the appropriate analogy is to GC IV, not GC III — a critical point I’ll return to below.

Marty and Steve’s next two analogies, however, are far more more problematic:

[T]here likely are significant detention limits with respect to persons who provide medical support to enemy forces while “permanently and exclusively engaged as a medic,” see Warafi (discussed above), since such limits traditionally apply to such persons (indeed, even if they are part of an enemy force) in an international armed conflict, under article 24 of the First Geneva Convention and article 33 of the Third Geneva Convention.  On the other hand, perhaps substantial supporters of enemy forces who are apprehended while accompanying such forces can be detained on roughly the same terms as the forces themselves, just as they can be in an international conflict.  Cf. Third Geneva Convention, art. 4(4).

I would be perfectly happy to determine the detainability of medics by analogizing to Article 33 of GC III.  Under Article 33, medics and religious personnel can be detained, but they are entitled to treatment far better than even POWs receive.  In particular they must “be granted all facilities necessary to provide for the medical care of, and religious ministration to prisoners of war.” Does anyone seriously believe that the U.S. would follow the requirements of Article 33 if a medic or a mullah was detained at Guantanamo Bay?  It seems far more likely that the U.S. would simply claim the benefits of Article 33 (detention authority) while disavowing its obligations (continuation of the detainee’s professional function).

And therein lies the fundamental problem with determining detention authority under the NDAA’s “substantial support” prong by analogizing to IAC: the U.S. will always do so selectively, invoking the Geneva Conventions to justify detention but not providing detainees with their rights under the Conventions.  That is even more clear with regard to “persons who accompany the armed forces,” whom Marty and Steve suggest could be detained by analogy to Article 4(4) of GC III.  It is true that such individuals can be detained, but they are entitled to be treated as POWs, just like members of the regular armed forces, volunteer corps, or militias.  Moreover, such individuals cannot be deprived of their POW status for not complying with the conditions of privileged combatancy in Article 4(2) — such as wearing a fixed and distinctive sign — because those conditions do not apply to them.  But again, does anyone believe that the U.S. would treat “persons who accompany the armed forces” as POWs upon capture?

Let me be clear: I am not arguing that the U.S. should recognize POW status in NIAC.  My point is simply that, because POW status does not exist in NIAC, it would be inappropriate for U.S. courts to determine the limits of “substantial support” by mechanically — and selectively — analogizing to GC III’s rules governing POWs.  If the analogy to IAC is at all appropriate, the analogy should be to GC IV, governing the detention and treatment of civilians — a possibility that Marty and Steve acknowledge, citing Ryan Goodman’s excellent article on the subject.  (The one exception might be individuals who assume a continuous combat function in an organized armed group, for whom the appropriate analogy could be GC III.  But such individuals would not be detained for being “part of” al-Qaeda, not for “substantially supporting” it.)  If U.S. courts do analogize to GC IV, however, they must not be permitted to give the government all of the Convention’s detention authority while not imposing any of its concomitant detention obligations.  On the contrary, if courts are going to use GC IV to ground the detention of individuals who “substantially support” al-Qaeda, the individuals thereby detained must be given all of the rights to which civilians are entitled to under it.

Readers may think that I’m splitting hairs here.  What does it matter if U.S. courts analogize to GC III instead of GC IV?  Actually, it matters a great deal — particularly concerning indefinite detention.  Detention “without trial until the end of hostilities,” the centerpiece of the NDAA, is a GC III standard; GC IV is much more restrictive, befitting the detainee’s status as a civilian:

Art. 132. Each interned person shall be released by the Detaining Power as soon as the reasons which necessitated his internment no longer exist.

The Parties to the conflict shall, moreover, endeavour during the course of hostilities, to conclude agreements for the release, the repatriation, the return to places of residence or the accommodation in a neutral country of certain classes of internees, in particular children, pregnant women and mothers with infants and young children, wounded and sick, and internees who have been detained for a long time.

Article 132 is critically important to the debate between David Cole and Marty and Steve, because it means that Marty and Steve are too quick to dismiss David’s argument that the NDAA’s “indefinite detention” provisions are not necessarily consistent with the laws of war.  Even if we grant that the appropriate analogy is to IAC, as opposed to IHRL or the interplay of IHL and IHRL, the rules of detention for those who “substantially support” al-Qaeda or its associated forces must be derived from GC IV, not GC III.  And GC IV does not permit indefinite detention in the manner contemplated by the NDAA.

Hey morons...none of this shit is legal, it goes against every sentence in every founding document for this country. The only way it is legal is via an invading force's opinion about it. In other words, there may be a few pychotic royal incestuous queen bitches who are arguing this is legal via their empty vassal Soetoro. But that just means we are again being invaded by imperialistic scumbags like in 1812 and if that is the case then the military should recognize that there is an invading force trying to totally destroy the United States of America.
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 Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
2012 Presidential Candidate Ron Paul: The NDAA Repeals More Rights
Saturday, 31 December 2011 19:54
http://nwotruth.com/2012-presidential-candidate-ron-paul-the-ndaa-repeals-more-rights/
The Intel Hub
By Ron Paul
December 27, 2011

Little by little, in the name of fighting terrorism, our Bill of Rights is being repealed. The 4th amendment has been rendered toothless by the PATRIOT Act.

No more can we truly feel secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects when now there is an exception that fits nearly any excuse for our government to search and seize our property. (Read more…) Of course, the vast majority of Americans may say “I’m not a terrorist, so I have no reason to worry.”

However, innocent people are wrongly accused all the time. The Bill of Rights is there precisely because the founders wanted to set a very high bar for the government to overcome in order to deprive an individual of life or liberty.

To lower that bar is to endanger everyone. When the bar is low enough to include political enemies, our descent into totalitarianism is virtually assured.

The PATRIOT Act, as bad is its violation of the 4th Amendment, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) continues that slip toward tyranny and in fact accelerates it significantly.

The main section of concern, Section 1021 of the NDAA Conference Report, does to the 5th Amendment what the PATRIOT Act does to the 4th. The 5th Amendment is about much more than the right to remain silent in the face of government questioning. It contains very basic and very critical stipulations about due process of law. The government cannot imprison a person for no reason and with no evidence presented or access to legal counsel.

The dangers in the NDAA are its alarmingly vague, undefined criteria for who can be indefinitely detained by the US government without trial. It is now no longer limited to members of al Qaeda or the Taliban, but anyone accused of “substantially supporting” such groups or “associated forces.”

How closely associated? And what constitutes “substantial” support? What if it was discovered that someone who committed a terrorist act was once involved with a charity? Or supported a political candidate? Are all donors of that charity or supporters of that candidate now suspect, and subject to indefinite detainment? Is that charity now an associated force?

Additionally, this legislation codifies in law for the first time authority to detain Americans that has to this point only been claimed by President Obama.

According to subsection (e) of section 1021, “[n]othing 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.”

This means the president’s widely expanded view of his own authority to detain Americans indefinitely even on American soil is for the first time in this legislation codified in law. That should chill all of us to our cores.

The Bill of Rights has no exemptions for “really bad people” or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person.

That is not a weakness in our legal system; it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the bill of rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war, and the entire Unites States is a battlefield in the War on Terror. This is a very dangerous development indeed. Beware.

Originally appeared at http://paul.house.gov
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 Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
ACLU Condemns Obama For Signing Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law
http://nalert.blogspot.com/2011/12/aclu-condemns-obama-for-signing.html
Saturday, December 31, 2011

The ACLU has this message on their website:

“President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.”

Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again.

The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA.

In addition, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.

“We are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention authority in court,” said Romero. “Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today."

ACLU: We Condemn President Obama For Signing Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-bill-law
December 31, 2011

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: [email protected]

WASHINGTON – President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law today. The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision.  While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use the authorities granted by the NDAA, and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations.  The White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA, but reversed course shortly before Congress voted on the final bill.

“President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.  The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.”

Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again. The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA. In addition, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.

“We are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention authority in court,” said Romero. “Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today. Thankfully, we have three branches of government, and the final word belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority. But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAA’s detention authority.”

The bill also contains provisions making it difficult to transfer suspects out of military detention, which prompted FBI Director Robert Mueller to testify that it could jeopardize criminal investigations.  It also restricts the transfers of cleared detainees from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to foreign countries for resettlement or repatriation, making it more difficult to close Guantanamo, as President Obama pledged to do in one of his first acts in office.
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 Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
UNBELIEVABLE! Yup you heard right and this now has me pissed off so much that I'm starting to go stir crazy.....

http://dprogram.net/2011/12/11/senator-levin-revealed-it-was-obama-who-required-the-indefinite-detainment-bill-include-u-s-citizens-as-part-of-the-wording/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

(SherrieQuestioningAll) – Well now we know, for those who have been holding out “hope” that Obama will veto the 1031 Indefinite Detainment Bill against holding U.S. Citizens without rights to a trial or lawyer or charges for the rest of their lives…. It was Obama who required the bill have the language of U.S. Citizens being held without rights in the bill!  The only reason he would veto it, is because it does not give him the absolute power as he wants! –

Obama wants absolute Dictatorial Powers and the Senate gave it to him?  I posted some of his Lies during his campaign.  Especially the ones about the Rights of the People, closing Gitmo and standing up for the Constitution.

Here is Senator Levin on the floor of the Senate revealing it was Obama himself who Demanded U.S. Citizens be part of the Indefinite Detainment Bill!

Please send this video to your State Representatives, especially those Republican held states – maybe they will have morals and protect their state citizens from this.  I know…. it is doubtful – but we still have to try, in my opinion.

Video of Levin on Senate floor revealing it was Obama who demanded U.S. Citizens be part of the language of the Indefinite Detention in 1031 Bill:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLiKvSz_wX8&feature=player_embedded



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 global_fiefdom

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 720
i keep thinking of Sarah Connor.

i could never be that strong...  :'(

no one should have to face indefinite solitary.

Offline Nailer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,448
OBAMA SIGNED IT!!

Dec 31, 5:42 PM EST


Obama signs defense bill despite 'reservations'
By JULIE PACE
Associated Press
 
 
 
Latest News
Obama signs defense bill despite 'reservations'
In 2012, Obama to press ahead without Congress
 
 
HONOLULU (AP) -- President Barack Obama signed a wide-ranging defense bill into law Saturday despite having "serious reservations" about provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.

The bill also applies penalties against Iran's central bank in an effort to hamper Tehran's ability to fund its nuclear enrichment program. The Obama administration is looking to soften the impact of those penalties because of concerns that they could lead to a spike in global oil prices or cause economic hardship on U.S. allies that import petroleum from Iran.

Administration officials said Obama was only signing the measure because Congress made minimally acceptable changes that no longer challenged the president's terrorism-fighting ability.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_DEFENSE_BILL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
 
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 Nailer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,448
We the people that are awake and realise the the tyrannical measures implemented at the signing of the NDAA into law need to prepare as best we can and be ready to defend ourselves and our families at all costs.
 
This is no false alarm as it is very real  as the Bill Of Rights has just been suspended In America and the question that all who realise it are asking is " what are we going to do about it "?
 
We have just been put in the same position as our founding Fathers were when they decided they had had enough and Revolted against the Government .
 
So , what are you going to do?
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 Nailer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,448
We the people that are awake and realise the the tyrannical measures implemented at the signing of the NDAA into law need to prepare as best we can and be ready to defend ourselves and our families at all costs.
 
This is no false alarm as it is very real  as the Bill Of Rights has just been suspended In America and the question that all who realise it are asking is " what are we going to do about it "?
 
We have just been put in the same position as our founding Fathers were when they decided they had had enough and Revolted against the Government .
 
So , what are you going to do?

Obama signs defense bill despite 'reservations'
HONOLULU (AP) -- President Barack Obama signed a wide-ranging defense bill into law Saturday despite having "serious reservations" about provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.
The bill also applies penalties against Iran's central bank in an effort to hamper Tehran's ability to fund its nuclear enrichment program. The Obama administration is looking to soften the impact of those penalties because of concerns that they could lead to a spike in global oil prices or cause economic hardship on U.S. allies that import petroleum from Iran.
In a statement accompanying his signature, the president chastised some lawmakers for what he contended was their attempts to use the bill to restrict the ability of counterterrorism officials to protect the country.
 
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_DEFENSE_BILL?SITE=A...
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 Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
It's a Global movement against the banks and Global government. Critical Info Films for Saving America: Take these and copy & paste these to your friends and other forums. Some of the most valuable tools in the infowar.

Police State 4:  The Rise of FEMA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Klqv9t1zVww

Invisible Empire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTrJQpgf6sE

Fall of the Republic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU

The Obama Deception
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw
 
Banks Versus the American Dream
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atmVLBrON60

The Money Masters.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936&q=The+money+changers&ei=Zd4QSMjvB47YqAKQtJmzBA

Endgame
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261&q=Endgame+&ei=1t4QSPaoB5q2rAKJzaywBA

Codex Alimentarius
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5800206429960925518

America: Freedom to Fascism
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=Freedom+to+Fascism&ei=at8QSJPIL52mrALI99GwBA
 
Police State 3:  Total Enslavement
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-448659287463550973
 
Police State 2:  The Takeover
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2758880303660529314#

Police State 2000
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1551348336255792191&ei=li3YSe2vEInUrQLMhunlAg&q=Police+state+2000

Terrorstorm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5948263607579389947

Loose Change Final Cut
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3719259008768610598&ei=3C3YSYvbKIKwrAKQqqzLAQ&q=Loose+Change+Final+Cut

Fabled Enemies
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2144933190875239407&ei=Fi7YSf6sAo6YrQL3rcXcAg&q=Fabled+Enemies

Alex Jones Films
http://www.smeggys.co.uk/viewforum.php?f=115


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 Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,802
    • GlobalGulag.com
Happy New Year: Obama Signs NDAA, Indefinite Detention Now Law of the Land
http://www.infowars.com/happy-new-year-obama-signs-ndaa-martial-law-bill/
Aaron Dykes & Alex Jones | Ushering in the New Year, President Obama makes indefinite detention law of the land, further destroying the principles the nation was founded upon.


Obama Signs Martial Law Bill: NDAA Now Law
http://www.infowars.com/obama-signs-martial-law-bill-ndaa-now-law/
Infowars | President Obama, who pledged to veto the National Defense Authorization Act, has signed it.
“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 Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,269
    • end times and current events
President Obama’s NDAA Signing Statement: I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t  
 ;)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

December 31, 2011

NOTE: First, it should be remembered that the Obama White House pressured Congress to add the controversial language to the bill, according to Sen. Carl Levin. Second, Signing Statements are not law, and are not a Constitutional power granted to the executive branch; any reassuring (or troubling) language within has no binding status– though it may shed light on the character of the chief executive and does signal a dangerous trend in de facto rule by “executive fiat”– and does not indicate any deviation of intent from the law as written. From Wikipedia: the Constitution does not authorize the President to use signing statements to circumvent any validly enacted Congressional Laws, nor does it authorize him to declare he will disobey such laws (or parts thereof). When a bill is presented to the President, the Constitution (Art. II) allows him only three choices: do nothing, sign the bill, or (if he disapproves of the bill) veto it in its entirety

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

rest: http://www.infowars.com/president-obamas-ndaa-signing-statement-i-have-the-power-to-detain-americans-but-i-wont/
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
President Obama’s NDAA Signing Statement: I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t  



  I don't think we could ever believe what he said about NDAA.
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,213
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
OBAMA SIGNED IT!!

And did so after saying he wouldn't. But then, as Senator, he voted to legalize warrantless wiretapping after saying he wouldn't, so what else is new?

If, after all the bald-faced lies Obama has told and all the promises he's broken, anyone is still willfully stupid enough to believe a word this teleprompter-reading puppet says, then that person quite frankly deserves every single ounce of Nazi-style tyranny and banker-imposed poverty he or she gets.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
President Obama’s NDAA Signing Statement: I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t  
 ;)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

December 31, 2011

NOTE: First, it should be remembered that the Obama White House pressured Congress to add the controversial language to the bill, according to Sen. Carl Levin. Second, Signing Statements are not law, and are not a Constitutional power granted to the executive branch; any reassuring (or troubling) language within has no binding status– though it may shed light on the character of the chief executive and does signal a dangerous trend in de facto rule by “executive fiat”– and does not indicate any deviation of intent from the law as written. From Wikipedia: the Constitution does not authorize the President to use signing statements to circumvent any validly enacted Congressional Laws, nor does it authorize him to declare he will disobey such laws (or parts thereof). When a bill is presented to the President, the Constitution (Art. II) allows him only three choices: do nothing, sign the bill, or (if he disapproves of the bill) veto it in its entirety

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

rest: http://www.infowars.com/president-obamas-ndaa-signing-statement-i-have-the-power-to-detain-americans-but-i-wont/

Hitler said the same thing when signing the Enabling Act.

The fact remains that the entire bill is illegal so he could say that he is going to kill everyone in his signing statement. The bill is a 100% fraud and the sooner everyone wakes up to this fact the better. Congress has no authority to go against the Constitution, they have very limited authority and anyone with an eigth grade education can read the constitution and see the fraud completely.


"An Unconstitutional Act is not a law;
it confers no rights; it imposes no duties;
it affords no protection; it creates no office;
it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative
as though it had never been passed."

~U.S. Supreme Court,
Norton V. Shelby County
118 U.S. 425, 442

Get A Clue People... This NDA-Act Piece of Lower than Whale Dung Tripe is totally and completely unconstitutional, and all in the house, and the 93 in the Senate who voted for it are TRAITORS!!!!!!! Wake the Hell up, stand up and SHOUT it OUT... ALL OF YOU!!!!

JTCoyoté

"Do not separate text from historical background.
If you do, you will have perverted and subverted
the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted,
bastardized form of illegitimate government."

~James Madison
[/font]


Any illegal law passed was never a law in the first place.


It's one of them and by direct interpretation in this case it upholds at the county level the 9th and 10th Amendment specifically, and the Constitution as the foundation law of precedent enabling all lawful statute at any level... The first big one to reign in the federal power which is to say to interpret the bounds of the federal power as enumerated and finite, is Marbury vs Madison.

"Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate
them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and
consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act
of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.

This theory is essentially attached to a written Constitution, and is
consequently to be considered by this Court as one of the fundamental
principles of our society. It is not, therefore, to be lost sight of in the
further consideration of this subject.

If an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void, does it,
notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the Courts and oblige them to give it
effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule
as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what
was established in theory, and would seem, at first view, an absurdity
too gross to be insisted on.

[. . .] the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the
principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law
repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other
departments, are bound by that instrument."
~Justice John Marshall
-- Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S 137, 1803


In other words, any law that declares the People as the enemy is on it's face unconstitutional, and treasonous to the greatest degree...

Wake Up! START SCREAMING FOR THEIR HIDES!

"All laws which are repugnant
to the Constitution are null
and void."

~U.S. Supreme Court
Marbury v. Madison,
2Cranch 5 U.S. (1803)


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 Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
"Perhaps it is a universal truth that
the loss of liberty at home is to be
charged to provisions against danger,
real or pretended, from abroad."
~James Madison


Oldyoti
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 kita

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,333
  • Action is the ONLY answer!
Alert: Obama Signs Martial Law Bill on NY eve: NDAA Now Law. Infowars
« Reply #219 on: January 01, 2012, 06:21:24 pm »
Obama Signs Martial Law Bill: NDAA Now Law

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KdxXhn3We7U#!


Get this out to EVERYONE you know,NOW!
ONLY answer to God,for God is Good, honest and just.God is the one,we'll have to answer to one day for our actions in the here and now -DO NOT DOUBT IT!

Offline kita

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,333
  • Action is the ONLY answer!
I'm surprised what Senator Udall said at the time:

Opposition in the Senate was thin but existent today. Senator Mark Udall (Dem-CO) cautioned lawmakers that these provisions will “deny American citizens their due process rights,” and thus not only “make us less safe, but would serve as an unprecedented threat to our constitutional liberties.”

“If we start labeling our citizens as enemies of the United States without any due process, I think we will have done serious damage” to the Constitution, he added, before also calling the legislation politically expedient.

Despite his reservations, Senator Udall reluctantly stated that he was voting in favor, noting that America’s military depends on a quick passing of the act.Why? Still, he said of the dangerous provisions to the act that will allow for the indefinite detention, “I remain unconvinced of their benefit.”There isnt any at all.Weak as [email protected]

“Now we may be jeopardizing entire cases by adding new layers of bureaucracy and questionable legal processes,” added Udall. He said the legislation will present “numerous constitutional questions” and will go against a counterterrorism community he described as “already nimble.”

“For those of you who join me in voicing opposition to the detention provisions, I want to thank you,” said Udall.

“Though I intend to vote for the final passing of the bill…I want to make clear that I do not fully support this bill. I sincerely believe that this debate is not over and there is much work to do.” Then why did you sign it!fool

Udall waved a copy of the US Constitution from the Senate floor before his colleagues as he made his closing remarks, reminding them that they all took an oath to uphold it. In the first ten amendments, collectively called the Bill of Rights, the Constitution grants Americans freedoms against searches, arrests and seizure without a probable cause. That legislation would have turned 220 years old today, had Congress not crushed it on the Senate floor.
ONLY answer to God,for God is Good, honest and just.God is the one,we'll have to answer to one day for our actions in the here and now -DO NOT DOUBT IT!

Offline pac522

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,821
  • Peace sells, but who's buying?
Udall waved a copy of the US Constitution from the Senate floor before his colleagues as he made his closing remarks, reminding them that they all took an oath to uphold it. In the first ten amendments, collectively called the Bill of Rights, the Constitution grants Americans freedoms against searches, arrests and seizure without a probable cause. That legislation would have turned 220 years old today, had Congress not crushed it on the Senate floor.

The Constitution doesn't grant us anything. It's set as a reminder to the government that those right's can never be infringed upon. These people stand up there and think they are a part of some entity that historically created a document that grants the peeps their rights, that can be altered by some stroke of the pen. It's time for a little history lesson.
This country did not achieve greatness with the mindset of "safety first" but rather "live free or die".

Truth is the currency of love. R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution!

We are all running on Gods laptop.
The problem is the virus called the Illuminati.  ~EvadingGrid

The answer to 1984 is 1776.

Offline Nailer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,448
A great article all should read.

The Constitutional Militia IS Your Duty Under The Second Amendment - Part I

http://www.rense.com/general95/p1_dev.htm



The Constitutional Militia IS Your Duty Under The Second Amendment - Part 2

http://www.rense.com/general95/P2_dev.htm
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
http://www.prisonplanet.com/myth-busted-yes-the-ndaa-does-apply-to-americans-and-heres-the-text-that-says-so.html




Myth busted: Yes, the NDAA does apply to Americans, and here’s the text that says so
                   
Mike Adams
Natural News

Monday, January 2, 2012
In the aftermath of the signing of the NDAA by the traitorous President Obama, some citizens remain completely hoodwinked by the language of the bill, running around the internet screaming that the law “does not apply to American citizens.”
This is, naturally, part of the side effect of having such a dumbed-down education system where people can’t even parse the English language anymore. If you read the bill and understand what it says, it clearly offers absolutely no protections of U.S. citizens. In fact, it affirms that Americans are subjected to indefinite detainment under “existing authorities.”
Let’s parse it intelligently, shall we?
First off, the offending section of the bill that used to be called 1031 was moved to 1021. Here is the title:
(http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-…)
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.
The two relevant sections to consider are titled and stated as follows;


(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.
By PARSING the language here, we must split it into two sentences based on the “or” operator. This statement essentially means:
• Nothing in this section is intended to LIMIT the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
• Nothing in this section is intended to EXPAND the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
In other words, this section places no limits whatsoever of the “authority of the President” to use military force (against American citizens). Keep that in mind as you read the next section:
(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.
This section “e” is the section that the hoodwinked people on the internet are running around saying “protects American citizens” from the NDAA. But where do they dream up such language? If you read section (e) again, you’ll discover it says nothing whatsoever about protecting American citizens from the NDAA. Instead, here’s what it really says when parsed into two sentences based on the “or” operator:
• Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing LAW 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.
• Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing AUTHORITIES relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
In other words, section (e) only says that it does notalter“existing authorities” relating to the detention of US citizens.
So to answer the question about whether this affects U.S. citizens, you have to understand “existing authorities.”
What are those “existing authorities?”
Existing authorities already allow indefinite detainment and the killing of American citizens
As everyone who studies history well knows, the Patriot Act already establishes an “existing authority” that anyone suspected of being involved in terrorist-related activities can be arrested and detained without trial. If you don’t believe me, just Google it yourself. This is not a debated issue; it’s widely recognized.
Furthermore, President Obama already insists that he has the authority to kill American citizens merely by decree! As Reuters reported on October 5, 2011, a “secret panel” of government officials (who report to the President) can decide to place an American citizen on a “kill list” and then murder that person, without trial, without due process, and without even being arrested. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011…)
Importantly, as Reuters reports, “Two principal legal theories were advanced [in support of the kill list authority] — first, that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001.”
Are you getting this yet? So the authority ALREADY exists for the President to order the killing of an American citizen. All that is required is that they besuspectedof being involved in terrorism in any way, and not a shred of evidence is required by the government to support that. There is no trial, no arraignment, no evidence and not even a hearing. You are simply accused and then disappeared.
Thus, the authority already exists, you see, and the NDAA openly states that “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing AUTHORITIES…”
In other words, the NDAA does nothing to protect American citizens, and it piggy-backs on the Patriot Act as well as Obama’s executive “kill list” justifications to essentially place all Americans in the crosshairs of government murderers or military action.
Rep. Justin Amash, a Congressman from Michigan, explains:
The key to subsection 1021(e) is its claim that sec. 1021 does not “affect existing law or authorities” relating to the detention of persons arrested on U.S. soil. If the President’s expansive view of his own power were in statute, that statement would be true. Instead, the section codifies the President’s view as if it had always existed, authorizing detention of “persons” regardless of citizenship or where they are arrested. It then disingenuously says the bill doesn’t change that view.(http://www.facebook.com/note.php?no…)
Follow more from Rep. Justin Amash at Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash
Storing food could get you labeled as a terror suspect
So then, you might be wondering, “What kinds of activities could get me accused of being involved in supporting terrorism?”
And here’s the kicker, because all the following activities could cause you to be arrested, detained, interrogated and even murdered all under U.S. law, thanks to Obama:
• Criticizing the federal government.
• Using cash to purchase things.
• Storing food and medical supplies.
• Owning a firearm and storing ammunition.
• Standing still and minding your own business near a government building.
• Writing something down on a piece of paper near a government building.
• Using a pair of binoculars.
• Protesting for animal rights in front of a medical lab.
• Protesting your government (or Wall Street).
• Requesting to take more than a couple thousand dollars out of your bank account in cash.

You see, under existing authority, you could be labeled a “terror suspect” for engaging in any of these activities, and then LEGALLY arrested, detained, interrogated or even killed by the U.S. government, all under Obama’s authority (or whatever next President takes over in Washington and perhaps does far worse things with that power…)
You are already enemy combatants, folks. The NDAA does absolutely nothing to protect you from its provisions. In fact, it openly states that it does not limit existing authorities — authorities which already claim the right to subject you to indefinite military detention merely for being “suspected” of involvement with “terrorism,” which could be interpreted to apply in practically any situation.
Reading between the lines
Get this through your heads, folks: to properly understand the NDAA (or any other bill), you have to learn to think like lawyers and tyrants.
They don’t just put language right out in plain view that says, “Americans may never be arrested or detained without due process.” Instead, they create a web of legalese statements that are cross-referenced, paraphrased and specifically engineered to obfuscate their intended purpose. This isdesignedto hide their true intentions, not to make them clear.
Furthermore, if the bill actually intended toprotectAmericans from the NDAA, then it should have contained language saying something like, “American citizens are specifically excluded from all the provisions of this bill, in its entirety.”
I’ll bet anyone a thousand dollars they won’t find language like that in the bill.Because it doesn’t exist!And the reason it doesn’t exist is because the NDAA is clearly intended to apply to American citizens.
The writers of the bill have managed to fool a lot of everyday people who seem unable to parse language and read plain English with any depth of understanding. That is as much a failure of America’s public education system as anything else. I find it astonishing that today’s citizenscan’t even read and understand the grammatical structure of sentences written in plain English.This alone is a highly disturbing subject that must be addressed another day. For now, it’s enough just to realize that the NDAA really does apply to you, me, and all our neighbors and friends. In signing it, Obama has cemented his place in history as the enabler of government-sponsored mass murder of its own citizens.
History does repeat itself after all, huh? Hitler, Stalin, Mao and now “Obama the enabler.” While Obama himself probably won’t engage in the mass murder of American citizens, have no illusions that a future President will try to use the powers enacted by Obama to carry out such crimes. Gingrich, anyone?
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
http://www.prisonplanet.com/obamas-ndaa-signing-statement-is-meaningless.html



Obama’s NDAA Signing Statement Is Meaningless
                   
Administration itself demanded power to detain American citizens without trial
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Prison Planet.com

Monday, January 2, 2012

Barack Obama’s signing statement that was added to the passage of the NDAA bill in an effort to dampen concerns over the ‘indefinite detention’ provision of the bill is smoke and mirrors for a number of reasons – prime amongst them the fact that it was the White House itself – not lawmakers – who demanded Section 1031 be expanded to empower the government to detain U.S. citizens without trial.
On first reading, Obama’s signing statement appears to assuage fears that American citizens could be targeted for arrest and detention without trial.
“My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens … Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation,” wrote Obama.
However, the statement is meaningless for a number of reasons.
Firstly, even if Obama manages to fulfil one of the rare occasions on which he keeps his word, this does nothing to stop future administrations from exercising the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial.
Secondly, the Obama administration is already carrying out even more egregious measures than those supposedly authorized within the NDAA, by targeting American citizens worldwide for state-sponsored assassination with no legal process whatsoever.
Thirdly, Obama has reversed almost every single promise he made to get elected – his word is no good. Given the right civil emergency, Obama could turn to indefinite detention of citizens without hesitation.
Crucially, Obama’s promise that he will not use the law to detain Americans without trial is completely hollow – because it was his administration that demanded the power to do so in the first place.
As the bill’s co-sponsor Senator Carl Levin said during a speech on the floor last month, it was the Obama administration that demanded the removal of language that would have precluded Americans from being subject to indefinite detention.


“The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section,” said Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
“It was the administration that asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee…we removed it at the request of the administration,” said Levin, emphasizing, “It was the administration which asked us to remove the very language the absence of which is now objected to.”
If the Obama administration is so opposed to the idea of detaining Americans without trial, why did they push for such powers to be included in the final version of the National Defense Authorization Act?

It’s also necessary to highlight the fact that just because this bill has been passed into law, that shouldn’t bestow any kind of legitimacy to it given that indefinite detention is anathema to the bill of rights and the constitution. It was once a law that black people were not human – that doesn’t mean it’s right or should be given credence.
The passage of the indefinite detention provision is about sticking the final nail in the coffin of Posse Comitatus and openly declaring war on the American people. Is it any wonder that at the same time U.S. citizens are being targeted by the federal government, they are buying guns in record numbers?
By brazenly codifying the powers of a totalitarian state into law, lawmakers and the Obama administration have crossed the rubicon and laid down the framework for the nationwide implementation of martial law.
But that doesn’t mean it’s going to happen tomorrow, this year or even next. The next play will not be the mass round up of American citizens, the law first has to be legitimized by being used against a universally loathed figure, just as Obama’s assassination policy was first exercised to take out Al-Qaeda members like Abdulrahman al-Awlaki.

*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline pac522

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,821
  • Peace sells, but who's buying?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/obamas-ndaa-signing-statement-is-meaningless.html



Obama’s NDAA Signing Statement Is Meaningless
                   
Administration itself demanded power to detain American citizens without trial
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Prison Planet.com

Monday, January 2, 2012


The title should read, The NDAA Is Meaningless as Sane stated above.

"All laws which are repugnant
to the Constitution are null
and void."

~U.S. Supreme Court
Marbury v. Madison,
2Cranch 5 U.S. (1803)
This country did not achieve greatness with the mindset of "safety first" but rather "live free or die".

Truth is the currency of love. R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution!

We are all running on Gods laptop.
The problem is the virus called the Illuminati.  ~EvadingGrid

The answer to 1984 is 1776.

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,164
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Offline Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,802
    • GlobalGulag.com
Another Tyrannical Success for Lieberman:
Enemy Expatriation Act Now Law Under NDAA

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/01/another-tyrannical-success-for.html



Eric Blair
Activist Post

Last January, four-term senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) announced that he would not seek reelection in the upcoming 2012 elections.  This seems to have relieved any pressure of facing his constituency for approval, allowing him to push for some of the most draconian legislation in the history of the United States.  Or, perhaps, he is just auditioning for a more powerful position like Secretary of Defense or Secretary of the DHS.

Besides his renewed pressure on Google and Twitter to openly censor the Internet, Lieberman's desire to crush all dissent against the war machine has manifested in bills like his Enemy Belligerent Act, his Internet Kill Switch bill, and the recently introduced Enemy Expatriation Act.

Unfortunately, the most egregious parts of the above mentioned bills already found their way into law under the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which seemingly renders any further discussion of these bills as somewhat redundant, but they certainly won't be critically discussed in the corporate media.

The Enemy Belligerent Act grants "the president the power to order the arrest, interrogation, and imprisonment of anyone -- including a U.S. citizen -- indefinitely, on the sole suspicion that he or she is affiliated with terrorism, and on the president's sole authority as commander in chief."

The Internet Kill Switch bill, officially called the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, gives the President the authority to police, censor and shut down parts of the Internet under a cyber emergency.  While promoting the bill, Lieberman openly called for the U.S. to have the same ability to censor the Internet as China.

The Enemy Expatriation Act aimed to remove the rights protected by U.S. citizenship from those who "support hostilities against the United States."  This act was in response to Obama's assassination of a U.S. citizen without formal charges or due process to, in effect, legalize such action by removing Constitutional protections of those suspected of supporting hostilities.

The NDAA, which has declared American soil part of the formal battlefield, permits the U.S. military to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens on the suspicion of supporting or sympathizing with broadly defined terrorists -- thus effectively rendering their rights as citizens obsolete -- expatriation in practice but not in name.

The NDAA also includes authorization to go after those who engage in a "belligerent act" including protests and speech, thus fulfilling the intent of the Enemy Belligerent Act.  Shahid Buttar points out on FireDogLake:

    If Occupy and Tea Party groups are treated as terrorists, does that render them among the 'associated forces' of groups 'engaged in hostilities against the United States' for whom the NDAA authorizes military detention without trial? Just to be clear: no one has a good answer here, which is precisely the problem.

    Even within the four corners of the NDAA itself (here’s the full text of the bill), section 1031(b)(2) includes among 'covered persons' subject to potential military detention 'any person who has committed a belligerent act….' What, exactly, is a belligerent act? 'Hostile' and 'aggressive' are synonyms, and while the term has an established (though not entirely defined) meaning in the context of international war, its precise meaning in the context of the NDAA remains unspecified.

And finally, the NDAA declares the Internet an "operation domain" in the war on terror allowing for the Pentagon, "upon direction by the President may conduct offensive operations in cyberspace."  The authority goes even further than passive Internet censorship.  The Pentagon also claims the authority to use military force as a response to serious cyber attacks.  The Pentagon announced their efforts (PDF) to recruit and train an army of cyber soldiers as funded by the NDAA.

How bad each of these bills are separately only reflects the magnitude of what Lieberman and his hawkish ilk were able to accomplish in the NDAA.  No other elected official can claim the success of Lieberman in terms of ramming through increasingly tyrannical legislation.  But nearly all elected officials are responsible for passing the NDAA and its predecessor the USA PATRIOT Act.

So, protest of these individual bills are futile, much like the overwhelming public opposition to the bank bailouts was futile in swaying the "deciders."  As Lieberman departs the Senate in a blaze of tyranny, Americans will most certainly continue to be burned unless the people wake up.

Watch the Must See explanation of the significance of the NDAA:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DxSVt1R4Iws
“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 oyashango

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,524
  • 43 Trillion and counting
A thought just occurred to me. Is it possible that this NDAA might be a preemptive move by Obama's handlers, because they know that they will rig it where he will be reelected . . . and if so, they know that most of America will probably take to the streets?  Just a thought.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Hitler's Enabling Act is the same as Bilderberg's NDAA
http://www.customscorruption.com/hitler.htm

Before the vote, Hitler made a speech in which he pledged to use restraint.

"The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures...The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one," Hitler told the Reichstag.


=

Office of the Press Secretary

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

December 31, 2011

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540


Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.


What is the f-ing difference?
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 Freeski

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,706
History repeats.

It's the same fricking thing! All governments do it and have done it forever!

Liberty is the exception, not the norm!
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.

Offline henchman99942

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 32
OK

Resistance.  Don't be arrested.  Infowars needs to set up a phone network whereby people who face arrest by the government can call the anti-ndaa network in your state and fellow citizens will mobilize to your aid. 

Wherever you are, in your car or in your house, DON'T get arrested.  Call the network.  Your fellow citizens will drop everything and meet you at your location and occupy the arrest site. 

Don't get disappeared.  Don't become a statistic of tyranny.

Join the freedom gang!

Offline Constitutionary

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,239
Since Banks versus the America Dream has been taken down at YOUTUBE !!!!!
 
The American Dream Film-Full Length
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGk5ioEXlIM


Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,164
bump for selection Nov 6 2012
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,164
bump for new gun ban push
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5