PDA

View Full Version : Congress Voting 4 Perpetual Wars - Anyone Keeping An Eye On This???




libertygrl
05-16-2011, 01:36 PM
Here's the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d112:1:./temp/~bdpok2:@@@T|/home/LegislativeData.php?n=BSS;c=112|

The guy who sponsored it: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00006882&cycle=2010


PLEASE READ:

Congress To Vote On Declaration of Worldwide Perpetual War; No Borders, No Clear Enemies (H.R. 1540-FY 12 DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL):

The United States Congress is set to vote on legislation that authorizes the official start of World War 3, a worldwide war against an invisible enemy that can reside in any country the U.S. Government chooses.

The Intel Hub
by Alexander Higgins with excerpts from Alex Thomas 



The legislation authorizes the President of the United States to take unilateral military action against all nations, organizations, and persons, both domestically and abroad, who are alleged to be currently or who have in the past supported or engaged in hostilities or who have provided aid in support of hostilities against the Untied States or any of its coalition allies.

The legislation removes the requirement of congressional approval for the use of military force and instead gives the President totalitarian dictatorial authority to engage in any and all military actions for an indefinite period of time.

It even authorizes the President the authority to launch attacks against American Citizens inside the United States with no congressional oversight whatsoever.

Just to recap, because that was a mouthful:

▪ Endless War – The war will continue until all hostilities are terminated, which will never happen.
▪ No Borders – The president will have the full authority to launch military strikes against any country, organization or person, including against U.S citizens on U.S soil.
▪ Unilateral Military Action – Full authority to invade any nation at any time with no congressional approval required.
▪ No Clearly Defined Enemy – The US can declare or allege anyone a terrorist or allege they are or have been supporting “hostilities” against the US and attack at will.
▪ Authorization To Invade Several Countries – The president would have full authority to invade Iran, Syria, North Korea, along with several other nations in Africa and the Middle East and even Russia and China under the legislation all of which are “know” to have supported and aided hostilities against the United States.

The American Civil Liberties Union writes:
New Authorization of Worldwide War Without End?

Congress may soon vote on a new declaration of worldwide war without end, and without clear enemies. A “sleeper provision” deep inside defense bills pending before Congress could become the single biggest hand-over of unchecked war authority from Congress to the executive branch in modern American history. President Obama has not sought new war authority. In fact, his administration has made clear that it believes it already has all of the authority that it needs to fight terrorism.

But Congress is considering monumental new legislation that would grant the president – and all presidents after him – sweeping new power to make war almost anywhere and everywhere. Unlike previous grants of authority for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the proposed legislation would allow a president to use military force wherever terrorism suspects are present in the world, regardless of whether there has been any harm to U.S. citizens, or any attack on the United States, or any imminent threat of an attack. The legislation is broad enough to permit a president to use military force within the United States and against American citizens. The legislation contains no expiration date, and no criteria to determine when a president’s authority to use military force would end.

Of all of the powers that the Constitution assigns to Congress, no power is more fundamental or important than the power “to declare War.” That is why, in 2002, when Congress was considering whether to authorize war in Iraq, it held fifteen hearings, and passed legislation that cited specific harms, set limits, and defined a clear objective. Now, Congress is poised to give unchecked authority to the executive branch to use military force worldwide, with profoundly negative consequences for our fundamental democratic system of checks and balances. Once Congress expands the president’s war power, it will be nearly impossible to rein it back in. The ACLU strongly opposes a wholesale turnover of war power from Congress to the president – and all of his successors.

The offending text uses doublespeak to declare perpetual war. Specifically, the text uses the phrase “affirms” armed conflict which is the terminology used by congress to declare war in every instance since World War 2.

Congress affirms that —
(1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad;
(2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note);
(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who—
(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al‐Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or
(B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and
(4) the President’s authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.

Indeed, the moment we all feared has come before us, as Congress is set to give the President absolute power over the military, including the authority to launch military strikes within the United States against U.S. citizens. With the assassination of Osama Bin Laden on Pakistan soil many were naive enough to believe that the War on Terror would come to an end.

Instead, the reported success of the raid to kill Osama bin Laden is being used as a crutch to push through new legislation in the defense bills which literally authorize World War 3, an endless war with no defined enemies and no borders.

The whole Osama Bin Laden staged media spectacle was put forward not only in order to install TSA in train stations, malls, and all major public events; it is also being used to convince the public to support endless war all in the name of security. Short of committing genocide, the termination of the hostilities will never come and as such the war will never come to end.

We have already learned that officials falsified reports that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion of Iraq for the “prize” of oil. If a whole government of top officials can not be trusted, then surely a single president cannot be trusted either.

We have seen the U.S. Government turn Nazi and buy and burn every copy of a book (Operation Dark Heart) that had evidence of a 9/11 cover up. The Department of Justice has already published a memo calling constitutionalists and survivalists potential terrorists.

Is it not bad enough that U.S courts have already legalized the abduction of U.S citizens along with their indefinite detention and torture in overseas prison camps? Or that the U.S Government openly admits to gunning down, kidnapping and torturing American college students? Under the definition of the legislation, the president could authorize the military to attack the ACLU building because they have supported the “terrorists” by arguing for their civil rights. How long will it take before this moves towards assassinating activists?

The have already labeled conspiracy theories as “dangerous thoughts that could lead to violence” and have even specifically called The Intel Hub, which routinely publishes my articles, an echo chamber pushing out “dangerous thoughts that could lead to violence”. Uncle Sam openly admits to turning its multi-billion dollar espionage network against U.S citizens which has produced such great fruits as innocent activists exercising their first amendment rights being placed on the terrorist watch list by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security.

Just remember that as long as we are in a state of war your civil liberties and constitutional rights are pretty much null and void, only enforceable if the Government allows you to have them. Even then, they can declare you a terrorist, an enemy combatant, or a threat to national security to revoke your constitutional rights immediately. They then can play the national security card when they are asked to explain their allegations.

This is rotten all around, and the first step to getting our rights back is to end the perpetual wars.

Contact your congressman and tell them NO WAY to this egregious bill!!

http://theintelhub.com/2011/05/15/congress-to-vote-on-declaration-of-worldwide-perpetual-war-with-no-borders-no-clear-enemies/

acptulsa
05-16-2011, 01:43 PM
Whatever this is, it seems not to have gotten a Bill Number yet. We shouldn't have to worry about it, as it should be struck down by the Supreme Court in short order. But we're far better of nipping it in the bud.

Anyone's senator or represenative on the Armed Services Committees?

libertygrl
05-16-2011, 02:01 PM
Whatever this is, it seems not to have gotten a Bill Number yet. We shouldn't have to worry about it, as it should be struck down by the Supreme Court in short order. But we're far better of nipping it in the bud.

Anyone's senator or represenative on the Armed Services Committees?

Members of the Committee

The House Armed Services Committee will be led by Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) with Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) serving as the Ranking Member.
Republicans

Howard P. “Buck” McKeon, Chairman, California
Roscoe G. Bartlett, Maryland
Mac Thornberry, Vice Chairman, Texas
Walter B. Jones, North Carolina
W. Todd Akin, Missouri
J. Randy Forbes, Virginia
Jeff Miller, Florida
Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Frank A. LoBiondo, New Jersey
Michael Turner, Ohio
John Kline, Minnesota
Mike Rogers, Alabama
Trent Franks, Arizona
Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
K. Michael Conaway, Texas
Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Rob Wittman, Virginia
Duncan Hunter, California
John C. Fleming, Louisiana
Mike Coffman, Colorado
Thomas J. Rooney, Florida
Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
Scott Rigell, Virginia
Chris Gibson, New York
Vicky Hartzler, Missouri
Joe Heck, Nevada
Bobby Schilling, Illinois
Jon Runyan , New Jersey
Austin Scott , Georgia
Tim Griffin , Arkansas
Steve Palazzo , Mississippi
Allen West , Florida
Martha Roby , Alabama
Mo Brooks , Alabama
Todd Young , Indiana

Democrats:

Adam Smith, Ranking Member, Washington
Silvestre Reyes, Texas
Loretta Sanchez, California
Mike McIntyre, North Carolina
Robert A. Brady, Pennsylvania
Rob Andrews, New Jersey
Susan A. Davis, California
James R. Langevin, Rhode Island
Rick Larsen, Washington
Jim Cooper, Tennessee
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
Joe Courtney, Connecticut
David Loebsack, Iowa
Gabrielle Giffords, Arizona
Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts
Chellie Pingree, Maine
Larry Kissell, North Carolina
Martin Heinrich, New Mexico
William L. Owens, New York
John Garamendi, California
Mark Critz, Pennsylvania
Tim Ryan , Ohio
C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger , Maryland
Hank Johnson, Georgia
Kathy Castor , Florida
Betty Sutton , Ohio
Colleen Hanabusa , Hawaii


http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/members

Noob
05-17-2011, 08:56 AM
Stop the Militarization of Law Enforcement!


I am writing urging you to oppose H.R. 968–the Detainee Security Act of 2011 sponsored by Representative McKeon–by voting for amendments to strip its key provisions from the National Defense Authorization Act for the Fiscal Year of 2012. The Detainee Security Act would disrupt our counterterrorism efforts and grant huge amounts of power to the President without the necessary oversight.

Provisions of this bill potentially authorize the President, without further Congressional approval, to launch war against countries like Iran and Indonesia, or use military force within the United States, even against American citizens. The bill would require that any terrorism suspect, including American citizens, be held in military custody and tried in military tribunals, instead of the American criminal justice system.

The bill also authorizes use of force against any “associated forces” of those who carried out the 9/11 attacks, and permits the Secretary of Defense to determine which persons, organizations, or nations constitute associated forces, meaning that the President could potentially engage in a war against a “secret” enemy.

On top of all of this, the bill restricts the transfer of Guantanamo detainees, even those who have been cleared of any wrongdoing, and we will continue to hold innocent people in prison, keeping the failed experiment of Guantanamo open.

I ask that you oppose this bill because none of this is wise or necessary in our fight against terrorism, and would in fact hinder our efforts.

Congress should be able to ensure that there is a strategy to enter and end any war, and that the United States has the financial resources to deploy military assets at a time when our armed forces and budget are spread thin.

Our criminal justice system has more laws that can be invoked to incapacitate terror suspects than a military justice system and has proven to be more effective, trying and convicting over 400 people on terrorism-related crimes since 9/11. This bill would take away this valuable tool in our war on terror.

Please oppose this unwise and unnecessary bill.


http://actions.humanrightsfirst.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=4048



H.R. 968, the Detainee Security Act of 2011, which we understand are likely to be considered as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of the Fiscal Year of 2012. Whatever one thinks about the merits of the Detainee Security Act, it is a serious enough departure from current counterterrorism policy and practice to merit consideration apart from the NDAA. Accordingly, we request that you use your chairmanship in the House Armed Services Committee to immediately hold hearings so that the public can further consider the various provisions within the Detainee Security Act.

Among the many troubling aspects of the Detainee Security Act are provisions that expand the war against terrorist organizations on a global basis. The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) of 2001 was widely thought to provide authorization for the war in Afghanistan to root out al Qaeda, the Taliban, and others responsible for the 9/11 attacks. That war has dragged on for almost ten years, and after the demise of Osama Bin Laden, as the United States prepares for withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Detainee Security Act purports to expand the "armed conflict" against the Taliban, al Qaeda, and "associated forces" without limit. By declaring a global war against nameless individuals, organizations, and nations "associated" with the Taliban and al Qaeda, as well as those playing a supporting role in their efforts, the Detainee Security Act would appear to grant the President near unfettered authority to initiate military action around the world without further congressional approval. Such authority must not be ceded to the President without careful deliberation from Congress.

The Detainee Security Act also unwisely requires that all terrorism suspects eligible for detention under the AUMF be held exclusively in military custody pending further disposition. The practical effect of this provision will be to undermine the ability of the FBI and local law enforcement to participate in counterterrorism operations, which could have serious negative impacts on national security. Moreover, in a recent hearing in the House Armed Services Committee, Department of Defense General Counsel Jeh Johnson noted that, rather than help clarify detention authority, the military custody provision in the Detainee Security Act would create serious litigation risk for the government.

The Detainee Security Act contains several additional troublesome provisions that relate to Guantanamo. The Detainee Security Act in effect requires that terrorism suspects be tried in military commissions, thereby cutting out Article III federal courts from conducting terrorism trials. This is unwise, as Article III federal courts have convicted over 400 individuals of terrorism-related offenses since 9/11. Military commissions, mired by legal problems and controversy, have convicted only six. The Detainee Security Act would also make permanent current transfer restrictions on Guantanamo detainees, further undermining the ability of the President to close the offshore detention facility. In our view, restricting the President in this way is unnecessary to promote a robust national security that keeps the American people safe.

Whatever one thinks of these various proposals in the Detainee Security Act, it is clear that they will have serious consequences and should be examined extensively. We therefore request that you use your chairmanship to immediately call hearings on Detainee Security Act so that the American people have an opportunity to consider the serious impacts that this legislation could have on our national security.

Our criminal justice system has more laws that can be invoked to incapacitate terror suspects than a military justice system and has proven to be more effective, trying and convicting over 400 people on terrorism-related crimes since 9/11. This bill would take away this valuable tool in our war on terror.

Please oppose this unwise and unnecessary bill.

Lucille
05-17-2011, 01:26 PM
Congress Proposes Bill to Allow Worldwide War ... Including INSIDE the U.S. (http://www.zerohedge.com/article/congress-proposes-bill-allow-worldwide-war-including-inside-us)


But as the ACLU noted yesterday, Congress is going even further ... proposing handing permanent, world-wide war-making powers to the president - including the ability to make war within the United States:


A hugely important provision for Congress to authorize a new worldwide war has been tucked away inside the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The bill was marked up by members of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) last Wednesday that poured into Thursday morning (2:45 a.m. to be exact).

A couple of minutes past midnight, Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) offered an amendment to strike Sec. 1034 — the new authorization for worldwide war provision — from the NDAA. Visibly angry that such a large sweeping provision had not yet had any public hearing whatsoever, he vigorously characterized it as a very broad declaration of war.

Rep. Garamendi was very concerned by the limitless geographic boundaries of the provision. Essentially, it would enable the U.S. to use military force anywhere in the world (including within the U.S.) in search of terrorists.

tpreitzel
05-18-2011, 01:59 AM
A piece from the NY Times on the NDAA of 2012 as promoted by the warmongers in Congress:

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/opinion/17tue1.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

COpatriot
05-18-2011, 02:52 AM
I am in (R)Doug Lamborn's district in Colorado.

ihsv
05-18-2011, 10:42 AM
The douchbag's top 4 contributers:

Lockheed Martin $52,000
Northrop Grumman $50,500
Boeing Co $28,900
General Dynamics $20,000

greyseal
05-19-2011, 12:09 AM
This legislation is based on Title 50 USC section 1541, pasted below. It deals with the Armed Forces, not the Military. Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution provides that Congress declares War, and controls the Military, the President is Commande in Chief, of the Military only when Congress declares war,period. see SUPREME COURT Youngstown Steel v. U.S.
The Armed Forces on the other hand, is the construction division of the Commodity Credit Corporation. In fact.there is no such thing as the Armed Forces, the orginal Act was the Armed Services Procument Act of 1947, in 1956-58 the title was changed to the Armed Forces, the lawyers for the Department of Defense(Commodity Credit Corporation, Petroleum division) changed the title without Congress oversight. Furthermore, Congress is charged with oversight of every Department they create, hense there is no Armed Forces committee. see The Armed Forces is not the Military posted on this website.




TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 33 > § 1541
Prev | Next § 1541. Purpose and policy
How Current is This? (a) Congressional declaration
It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations