Friday, December 30, 2011

NDAA, the politicians Christmas present to you - a police state

There has been a lot already out there on the abortion of a bill, this years National Defense Authorization Act. Jennifer Abel blogs about it here.

With the stoke of a pen, the politicians have taken a diarrhea shit all over the constitution. The major rot in this bill is contained in Subtitle D--Counterterrorism, Section 1021 specifically the clause:
(a) "In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war."
Why is this so odious? To understand, the next section explains just who a "covered person" is.
  1. A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

  2. A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
If you read this there is NO EXEMPTION for U.S. citizens, INCLUDING those on U.S. soil. The really ugly part of this bill is contained in the next section.
(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
  1. Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

  2. Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

  3. Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

  4. Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
Note, while section 1022 exempts U.S. citizens from military trials, and clause 4 above is for non citizens, the most odious, clause 1 CAN BE APPLIED TO U.S. CITIZENS! Read it again: "Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities".

So what this all boils down to is this gives the power to the government to indefinitely detain with no trial U.S. citizens accused of being a part of, or even "substantially supporting", "al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces". A modification to exempt U.S. citizens from indefinite detention was rejected by congress.

The forefathers in writing the constitution were VERY clear that citizens accused of crimes be granted a trial.
Here is the 5th amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
So the relevant section here is that citizens not in the armed forces are specifically not to be held by the government without a "presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury".

This alone should be enough to make this bill unconstitutional, but there is more.
Here is the 6th amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
I'm not a lawyer, but the text here is crystal clear, the government is required to give the accused a "speedy and public" trial, NOT hold them indefinitely.

Here is the 8th amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
While "cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" was intended for sentencing at trials end, I would state that indefinite detention of U.S. citizens with no trial could be construed as "cruel and unusual punishment".

As I read about this monstrosity that the politicians shit forth I asked myself "who asked for this"? A lot of unpalatable anti freedom bills can be traced back to corporate interests. SOPA is a great example of this, it has a long list of corporate sponsorship. I dislike SOPA intensely, but I understand it's origins; corporations, probably headed by RIAA/MPAA MAFIAA groups poured money into congress to get a bill giving them and the government control over the internet when it comes to copyright issues.

But who is supporting an indefinite detention for U.S. citizens provision of the NDAA? You might think that government agencies may have been pushing for this, but that seems not to be the case, as the detention provision is opposed by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, CIA Director David Petraeus, FBI Director Robert Mueller, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, White House Advisor for Counterterrorism John Brennan, and DOJ National Security Division head Lisa Monaco.

So who supports this? So far all I've been able to dig up are a small group of companies involved in defense contracts. Note the article does NOT say if any of these companies pushed for or support section 1021 of the NDAA, it is still NOT CLEAR to me where this came from. I'm going to field a guess on this, and I stand by it. I'm guessing that this did NOT emanate from corporations, but rather from a naked lust for power coming from the politicians. The constitution was specifically written to limit the power of government and many politicians don't like this at all. If section 1021 of this bill goes unchallenged, or worse, is upheld by the supreme court, the politicians will have gutted the constitution and replaced it with a police state.

Here is a list of the scum in the Senate who voted for this.
Here are the House members who voted for this.

1 comment:

  1. This bill has NOTHING to do with terrorism, that is the smoke and mirror routine the politicians wave in your face to fool you. The government pulled EXACTLY the same bullshit when it trampled peoples rights via asset seizure, claiming it was necessary to fight all those evil drug dealers.

    The government has a VERY long history of abuse of power, now the politicians have effectively neutralized the constitution. Indefinite detention without trial means the accused U.S. citizen is NEVER given a chance to prove innocence, the government can apply this under the NDAA to ANYONE INCLUDING U.S. citizens it ACCUSES of collaborating with Al-Qida or the Taliban. The government will of course initially apply this to unpalatable people. Then, when the sheeple don't object or worse, cheer them on it will be expanded to anyone the government feels like applying it to. Remember, under this, they don't need to prove ANYTHING, just accuse you and it's off to detention, forever.

    ReplyDelete