NDAA Battle Suffers Severe Blow.
NDAA Battle Suffers Severe Blow.
NDAA or The National Defense Authorization Act is presented to congress every year to approve budgets and general business. The NDAA for fiscal year 2012 was enacted last December 31. This particular year’s NDAA contained a provision for the indefinite detention of any one suspected of terrorism. That provision of the NDAA was halted by a federal judge through an injunction last May. Federal Judge Katherine Forrest made the injunction permanent last week. The injunction against that portion of the law was appealed by the Department of Justice. On Monday September 17th, 2012, Judge Raymond Lohier of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted an emergency stay on the injunction. As it now stands, the government has in its power to detain anyone they deem to be “associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners”.
Here is a brief excerpt from the law:
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.
(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.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section
is any person as follows:
(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.
The entire NDAA law can be viewed here and you can read Subtitle D, Section 1021 by scrolling to page 265.
That is just fine and dandy as long as we are talking about the Taliban and al-Qaeda. I am sure we all would like our government to have the tools it needs to keep us safe. The problem arises in making compromises to the constitution. The 4th amendment protects us from unwarranted search and seizure. We cannot be harassed or imprisoned without probable cause. Another problem arises when the administration that presently holds power disagrees with your particular views. We all remember the president’s statement about his opposition who “cling to their guns and religion”. The freedom of religion is our first right in the bill of rights and the right to bear arms is the second. These two foundational rights are regarded as being faults by our current leader.
I have a vivid recollection of the DHS report from 2009 that labeled those concerned about US national sovereignty, abortion, and the second amendment as being domestic terrorist threats. It is this type of rhetoric that causes me to be concerned when I read the third from the last line in the except that vaguely states “including any person who has committed a belligerent act“. We must be very careful about extending ever increasing power to a government that views those who would agree with the Constitution as “threats”.
While all the major media outlets have been prudent to cover which members of Britain’s royal family were missing which articles of clothing over the few weeks, nothing has been said about such an important topic. CNN nor FOX have said anything about the FY 2012 NDAA. I can’t speak for MSNBC as it is a brand of political propaganda that I cannot stomach in any amount.
Here is my final point. This law passed through a Democratic President, Democrat controlled Senate and a Republican controlled House. If you are concerned about it, you need to write some e-mails. Here are the list of contacts for the US Senate and the US House of Representatives.
Happy Prepping!
R or D I can’t imagine any of our “leaders” giving up such power once it is obtained. Remember, our own president once called the Constitution a document of negative rights. And one of our SC Justices described it as archaic. As we get deeper involved in the ME more executive orders and regulations will be enacted in the name of security. Watch for false flags and always watch the other hand!