Dec 15

As expected Obama bin Bush removed his veto threat …

- Senator Carl Levin: Obama Required US Citizens To Be Included In Indefinite Detention!

… and after signing this bill into law the US will be a FASCIST MILITARY POLICE STATE!

See provided links down below.


- “Guantánamo Forever?” – Congress Passes $662 Billion Defense Bill, Aka The NDAA (ZeroHedge, Dec. 15, 2011):

Congress just passed the National Defense Authorization Act in a 283-to-136 vote. 190 Republicans and 93 Democrats voted for; 43 Republicans and 93 Democrats voted “against.” Prepare to be arrested, without charge, simply because someone “up there” believes you engage in “terroristy” stuff. Good luck proving them wrong.

- House passes defense bill on detainees, Iran, Pakistan (Reuters, Dec 14, 2011):

The U.S. House of Representatives approved a defense bill on Wednesday requiring the military to handle suspected militants linked to al Qaeda, acting not long after President Barack Obama removed a veto threat from the controversial legislation.

The bill is expected to pass the Senate this week and then go to Obama’s desk for his signature into law.

Shortly before the House vote, the White House announced the president’s advisers would not recommend a veto, although they said they still had concerns about the measure.

The measure also imposes new sanctions against Iran’s central bank and pre-emptively freezes some aid to Pakistan.

White House drops veto threat on defense bill (CNN, Dec. 15, 2011)

The White House lifted a veto threat against a giant $662 billion defense authorization bill on Wednesday after legislators made changes in language involving detainees.

In particular, the legislators added language to make clear that nothing in the bill requiring military custody of al Qaeda suspects would interfere with the ability of civilian law enforcement to carry out terrorism investigations and interrogations in the United States.

A statement by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the changes mean that President Obama’s advisers will not recommend a veto. The measure is expected to come up for votes in the House and Senate this week.

Democrats to offer changes to payroll tax cut proposal

At issue was the president’s authority in deciding whether people detained in terrorism investigations would be held in military or civilian custody.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the legislation includes a “national security waiver” that allows the president to transfer a suspect from military to civilian custody if he chooses.

- Obama abandons veto on security bill that will give U.S. military powers to arrest Americans and hold them without trial (Daily Mail, Dec. 15, 2011):

President Barack Obama has dropped his plan to veto a new security law that would see American citizens arrested in the U.S. and detained indefinitely without trial.

The failure of Mr Obama to stand in the way of elements contained in the National Defense Authorization Act was immediately criticised by human rights groups.

Opponents of the bill say Mr Obama has lost his principles by disregarding the long-held belief that the military should not be used as a domestic police force.

- Obama to send US citizens to Guantanamo? Outrage as President signs off law to detain terror suspects indefinitely (Daily Mail, Dec. 15, 2011):

President Barack Obama faces a massive civil liberties backlash after he  signed a law that will allow terror suspects to be held indefinitely- even raising the prospects of U.S. citizens being sent to Guantanamo Bay.

- Guantánamo Forever? (New York Times, Dec, 12, 2011):

Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar are retired four-star Marine generals.

IN his inaugural address, President Obama called on us to “reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” We agree. Now, to protect both, he must veto the National Defense Authorization Act that Congress is expected to pass this week.

This budget bill — which can be vetoed without cutting financing for our troops — is both misguided and unnecessary: the president already has the power and flexibility to effectively fight terrorism.

One provision would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past. Some claim that this provision would merely codify existing practice. Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States — and hand Osama bin Laden an unearned victory long after his well-earned demise.

A second provision would mandate military custody for most terrorism suspects. It would force on the military responsibilities it hasn’t sought. This would violate not only the spirit of the post-Reconstruction act limiting the use of the armed forces for domestic law enforcement but also our trust with service members, who enlist believing that they will never be asked to turn their weapons on fellow Americans. It would sideline the work of the F.B.I. and local law enforcement agencies in domestic counterterrorism. These agencies have collected invaluable intelligence because the criminal justice system — unlike indefinite military detention — gives suspects incentives to cooperate.

Mandatory military custody would reduce, if not eliminate, the role of federal courts in terrorism cases. Since 9/11, the shaky, untested military commissions have convicted only six people on terror-related charges, compared with more than 400 in the civilian courts.

A third provision would further extend a ban on transfers from Guantánamo, ensuring that this morally and financially expensive symbol of detainee abuse will remain open well into the future. Not only would this bolster Al Qaeda’s recruiting efforts, it also would make it nearly impossible to transfer 88 men (of the 171 held there) who have been cleared for release. We should be moving to shut Guantánamo, not extend it.

Having served various administrations, we know that politicians of both parties love this country and want to keep it safe. But right now some in Congress are all too willing to undermine our ideals in the name of fighting terrorism. They should remember that American ideals are assets, not liabilities.

Don’t miss:

- Gerald Celente: ‘IT’S FASCIST. CAN’T YOU SEE IT?’ – ‘It’s A TAKEOVER’ – ‘Hail Obama!’ – ‘The United States Has Become One Big Warsaw Ghetto’

- The New American: US Senate Traitors Pass ‘Indefinite Detention’ Bill S.1867, Create A Military Police State – Senator Rand Paul’s Adress To The American People (Video)

- Business Insider: The Media’s Blackout Of The National Defense Authorization Act Is Shameful – ‘IF THIS BILL PASSES IN ITS CURRENT FORM THE UNITED STATES WILL BE A MILITARY POLICE STATE’ (Video)

- Constitutional lawyer (Yale Law School graduate) & Founder Of Oath Keepers Stewart Rhodes: Senate Bill Declares War On Americans (Video)

- Wired: U.S. Senate Wants The Military To Lock You Up Without Trial

- Natural News: Occupied America: Senate Bill 1867 Would Allow US Military To Detain And Murder Anti-Government Protesters In American Cities

- FOX News: Freedom Watch – Judge Napolitano Interviews Rand Paul On Unconstitutional INDEFINITE DETENTION Bill S. 1867 (Video)

- InfoWars: Senate Bill Would Allow US Military To Indefinitely Detain Americans Without Charge Or Trial Anywhere In The World

- Mother Jones: Is the US Getting Domestic Indefinite Military Detention (Also For US Citizens And Legal Permanent Residents) For Thanksgiving?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “‘Indefinite Detention’ For American Citizens: Congress Passes $662 Billion National Defense Authorization Act – White House Drops Veto Treat”

  1. mary macvicar Says:

    Please vote for the independent iin the next election – doesn’ matter who

  2. Sue Riley Says:

    Will Congress Expand The Defense Authorization Act To Include YOU as a “Covered Person?”

    It is problematic U.S. Government in the future will want to expand the scoop of Section 1021 in the passed Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (to include as “covered persons” for Indefinite Detention, not only persons “suspected of substantially supporting al-Qaeda or the Taliban; or their associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners” (but add to the list of “covered persons” (other) alleged terrorists and organizations foreign or domestic. Currently what constitutes (1) a terrorist act, (2) supporting terrorists or (3) being a “Belligerent” is broadly vague and not clearly defined? For example, Americans attending a protest demonstration against a U.S. Policy or U.S. Military Action could be charged with all (three) under the Patriot Act and The Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

    Provisions in The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 govern the “Authority of the President and Armed Forces to Detain (Covered Persons) without trial pursuant to the (AUMF) Authorization for Use of Military Force.

    FYI: Glenn Greenwald recently wrote an article titled “Three myths about the detention bill” that deeply examine provisions of The Defense Authorization Act including wording that is broadly vague, that potentially could cause the indefinite incarceration of Americans without trial; and conflicting definitions of “Covered Persons” in provisions (A) & (B) of section 1021. You may read Glen Greenwald’s article at: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/

    Is The Passed Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (retroactive) To Detain Americans?

    The Defense Authorization Act of 2012) appears more threatening to Americans than Hitler’s (1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS. Hitler’s laws set time limits that Germans could be incarcerated for e.g., Serious Disturbance of the Peace and Rioting. But Senators Carl Levin and John McCain’s bill broadly mandates holding Americans indefinitely in Military Custody for being a “Belligerent.”

    Why should anyone be surprised President Obama insisted on indefinite detentions of U.S. Citizens in The Defense Authorization Act? It was widely known that Obama gave a speech in May 2010 at a Security Conference that proposed, incarcerating anyone in indefinite detention without evidence of wrongdoing that government deemed a “combatant” or likely to engage or support a violent act in the future; including U.S. Citizens.

    Now that Obama has signed The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Obama like Hitler, will have the power to arrest members of Congress, drag U.S. Citizens off the street and from their homes to be imprisoned indefinitely based only on Government’s premise someone is a “Combatant” or Belligerent” having or likely to engage in or support a violent act in the future or do something that (might) threaten National Security.

    Now that Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, could millions of lawful U.S. activists be subject to indefinite military detention. When you examine Obama’s May 2010 speech, it appears Obama wanted (retroactive power) to incarcerate anyone that government alleged had (prior) committed or supported violent acts on the premise he or she is likely to engage in or support violent acts in the future: some U.S. activists may be vulnerable because no activist knows what other activists or groups they associated or networked did in the past or might do illegally in the future domestically or overseas. U.S. Government need (only allege) a person; group, organization current or former inmate—has committed or might commit a violent act or threaten U.S. National Security to order Indefinite Detention of Americans in military custody with no evidence whatsoever.

    Historically when countries have passed police state laws like S.1867, many Citizens abstain from politically speaking out; visiting activists websites or writing comments that might be deemed inappropriate by the Government, i.e. cause someone to be investigated or detained in Military Custody. Are some writers dead-meat with Obama’s signing of S. 1867? It is foreseeable any “American” who writes on the Internet or verbally express an opinion against any entity of U.S. Government or its coalition partners may under the Patriot Act and The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 be deemed by U.S. authorities a “Combatant or Belligerent” or someone likely to engage in, support or provoke violent acts or threaten National Security. U.S. Government can too easily allege an author’s writings inspired Combatant(s) or Belligerent(s) in the past; could in the future or currently, to order an author’s indefinite military detention.

    It is problematic that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings or allowed legal counsel that are interrogated, will be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite Military Detention. Obama will have the power to override the U.S. Constitution. Obama will have the power to detain indefinitely any American without probable cause or evidence. What American will dare speak out against the U.S. government now that Obama has signed The Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

    Obama appears to be centralizing the power of federal Government, by getting legislation passed that U.S. government can potentially use to intimidate and threaten any individual or corporation. Hitler got passed similar laws shortly before the burning of the German Parliament building blamed on the communists: immediately after the fire, Hitler used his prior passed police-state laws to coerce corporations and influential Citizens to support passage of fascist legislation e.g., the (1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS / DECREE OF THE REICH PRESIDENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE AND STATE that suspended provisions of the German Constitution that protected Citizens’ freedoms and civil liberties. Senators Carl Levin and John McCain’s (Defense Authorization Act of 2012) appears more threatening to Americans than Hitler’ (1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS. Hitler’s laws set time limits that Germans could be incarcerated for e.g., Serious Disturbance of the Peace and Rioting. But Senators Carl Levin (D) and John McCain’s ® bill broadly mandates holding Americans indefinitely in Military Custody for being a Combatant or Belligerent. A U.S. Police State Government can use The Defense Authorization Act; and Patriot Act that includes more than 350 civil asset forfeiture laws to threaten or seize the assets of any corporation or individual; to strong-arm U.S. corporations, institutions and others to support government actions including passage of more Police State (Fascist) legislation that will intimidate, threaten and curtail the civil liberties of Americans.

    Immediately Below: compare The 1933 Nazi Decrees with Senators Carl Levin and John McCain’s National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

    1933. ROBL. I 83.

    DECREE OF THE REICH PRESIDENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE AND STATE

    Note: Based on translations by State Department, National Socialism, 1942 PP. 215-17, and Pollak, J.K., and Heneman, H.J., The Hitler Decrees, (1934), pp. 10-11.7

    In virtue of Section 48 (2) of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against Communist acts of Violence, endangering the state:

    Section 1
    Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

    Section 2
    If in a state the measures necessary for the restoration of public security and order are not taken, the Reich Government may temporarily take over the powers of the highest state authority.

    Section 4
    Whoever provokes, or appeals for or incites to the disobedience of the orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities subject to then for the execution of this decree, or the orders given by the Reich Government according to Section 2, is punishable—insofar as the deed, is not covered by the decree with more severe punishment and with imprisonment of not less that one month, or with a fine from 150 up to 15,000 Reichsmarks.

    Whoever endangers human life by violating Section 1, is to be punished by sentence to a penitentiary, under mitigating circumstances with imprisonment of not less than six months and, when violation causes the death of a person, with death, under mitigating circumstances with a penitentiary sentence of not less that two years. In addition the sentence my include confiscation of property.

    Whoever provokes an inciter to or act contrary to public welfare is to be punished with a penitentiary sentence, under mitigating circumstances, with imprisonment of not less than three months.

    Section 5
    The crimes which under the Criminal Code are punishable with penitentiary for life are to be punished with death: i.e., in Sections 81 (high treason), 229 (poisoning), 306 (arson), 311 (explosion), 312 (floods), 315, paragraph 2 (damage to railroad properties, 324 (general poisoning).
    Insofar as a more severe punishment has not been previously provided for, the following are punishable with death or with life imprisonment or with imprisonment not to exceed 15 years:

    1. Anyone who undertakes to kill the Reich President or a member or a commissioner of the Reich Government or of a state government, or provokes to such a killing, or agrees to commit it, or accepts such an offer, or conspires with another for such a murder;
    2. Anyone who under Section 115 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious rioting) or of Section 125 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious disturbance of the peace) commits the act with arms or cooperates consciously and intentionally with an armed person;
    3. Anyone who commits a kidnapping under Section 239 of the Criminal with the intention of making use of the kidnapped person as a hostage in the political struggle.

    Section 6
    This decree enters in force on the day of its promulgation.

    Reich President
    Reich Chancellor
    Reich Minister of the Interior
    Reich Minister of Justice

Leave a Reply