PDA

View Full Version : Yes, Americans Will Be Targeted As Terrorists Under the NDAA




John F Kennedy III
11-28-2011, 04:39 PM
Yes, Americans Will Be Targeted As Terrorists Under the NDAA

Republican Congressman Amash warns that bill can be applied to U.S. citizens

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Infowars.com
Monday, November 28, 2011

Controversy over whether or not Americans are exempt from a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act bill, set to be voted on this week by the Senate, which defines the the entirety of the United States as a battleground in the war on terror, has been addressed by Republican Congressman Justin Amash, who warns that the bill does apply to U.S. citizens.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/February2009/230209top.jpg

As we previously reported, under the ‘worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial’ provision of S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which is set to be up for a vote on the Senate floor this week, the legislation will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who supports the bill.

That provoked concerns that American citizens could be targeted as terrorists and indefinitely detained without trial or charge.

“One section of these provisions, section 1031, would be interpreted as allowing the military to capture and indefinitely detain American citizens on U.S. soil. Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the U.S. military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil. That alone should alarm my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but there are other problems with these provisions that must be resolved,” Colorado Senator Mark Udall said in a speech earlier this month.

Following an ACLU alert on the legislation, some pointed out that the text of the bill actually exempts Americans from being detained under the new “homeland battlefield” designation under the proviso that “the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”

However, as Republican Congressman Justin Amash told the The Grand Rapids Press today, the language of the bill is “carefully crafted to mislead the public.”

“Note that it does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary,” Amash wrote on his Facebook page.

The controversy over whether or not the text of the bill suggests the legislation applies to U.S. citizens is largely inconsequential given the fact that every piece of anti-terror legislation passed since 9/11 has been used against Americans, both at home and abroad.

The Patriot Act was passed in the name of giving federal authorities the tools to catch terrorists, but it has been used in hundreds of cases against American citizens, often in cases that have no relation whatsoever to terrorism.

Furthermore, as Ron Paul has pointed out, Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen who has never been charged with any crime, was the victim of extrajudicial killing because of the same unconstitutional legalese that defines the entire globe as a “battlefield,” where the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens are declared null and void if they are designated as terrorists by the federal government.

Indeed, national intelligence director Dennis Blair openly stated last year that, “Being a U.S. citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives.”

Recall that José Padilla, an American citizen, was held without charge for 3 and a half years as an “enemy combatant” and denied a trial in civilian court, after being accused of planning to detonate a “dirty bomb,” an accusation that was enough to keep Padilla in a military brig for over three years yet was never proven.

As far back as December 2002, the Washington Post reported that a “parallel legal system” had been put in place under the auspices of the war on terror, in which terrorism suspects — U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike — may be investigated, jailed, interrogated, tried and punished without legal protections guaranteed by the ordinary system.”

The “battlefield” provision of the NDAA is nothing new, it is merely an updating of existing policy that has been applied to American citizens on numerous occasions over the last decade.

The difference is that the danger of American citizens being detained without trial as terrorists on frivolous pretexts is an even greater danger now given that the Department of Homeland Security has characterized behavior such as buying gold, owning guns, using a watch or binoculars, donating to charity, using the telephone or email to find information, using cash, and all manner of mundane behaviors as potential indicators of domestic terrorism.


http://www.infowars.com/yes-americans-will-be-targeted-as-terrorists-under-the-ndaa/

DamianTV
11-28-2011, 07:36 PM
This is so disturbing.

I want to say that people need to wake up to what is going on, but I have to withdraw that statement, because of my Military experience. The people in the Military are already awake to the atrocities that are committed by our own Government. Should an order come down to fire on American Civilians, I think many of our Military will turn their Government Issued Weapons on the Government that issued the order.

It isnt the Chain of Command that we need to be concerned with, it is the Chain of Obedience, and that Chain is only as strong as the dependancies that create it. Dependancy on Food, Paycheck, etc, but there comes a time when everyone will realize that they can survive just fine without the additional "benefits" that create that Dependancy, which in turn, creates the Chain of Obedience.

flightlesskiwi
11-28-2011, 08:00 PM
This is so disturbing.

I want to say that people need to wake up to what is going on, but I have to withdraw that statement, because of my Military experience. The people in the Military are already awake to the atrocities that are committed by our own Government. Should an order come down to fire on American Civilians, I think many of our Military will turn their Government Issued Weapons on the Government that issued the order.

It isnt the Chain of Command that we need to be concerned with, it is the Chain of Obedience, and that Chain is only as strong as the dependancies that create it. Dependancy on Food, Paycheck, etc, but there comes a time when everyone will realize that they can survive just fine without the additional "benefits" that create that Dependancy, which in turn, creates the Chain of Obedience.

plus freaking rep.

this may be a controversial statement: but military families breed dependency, careerism and complacency.

imagine the dilemma a person goes through if given an unlawful order. the choice is shut your pie hole and go along or disobey the unlawful order and possibly be ostracized, and/or dismissed from your contractual obligation thus losing your job and benefits and become unable to support your family who may also be shunned because of your decision, at best. at worst, not only lose your job, but go to trial and get thrown into prison for your "disobedience" and become entirely unable to provide for your family.

ultimately, every person will have to face it: security (comfort) or principle? if several people were to band together to disobey unlawful, unconstitutional orders, my outlook would not be so bleak. as it is now, (taking libya as an example and what is being said about and done to the OWS people) i believe the american public at large will be screwed. especially those who don't fit the mold of whatever weekly definition of "good patriots" and the non-conformists.

maybe the .mil will not be the biggest perpetrators to go after american citizens, but you can bet your *** the po-lice will be.

ZanZibar
11-28-2011, 08:02 PM
Senator Rand Paul aims to kill "indefinite detention" in DoD bill:

http://tncampaignforliberty.org/wordpress/2011/11/senator-rand-paul-aims-to-kill-indefinte-detention-in-dod-bill/

DamianTV
11-28-2011, 08:04 PM
plus freaking rep.

this may be a controversial statement: but military families breed dependency, careerism and complacency.

imagine the dilemma a person goes through if given an unlawful order. the choice is shut your pie hole and go along or disobey the unlawful order and possibly be ostracized, and/or dismissed from your contractual obligation thus losing your job and benefits and become unable to support your family who may also be shunned because of your decision, at best. at worst, not only lose your job, but go to trial and get thrown into prison for your "disobedience" and become entirely unable to provide for your family.

ultimately, every person will have to face it: security (comfort) or principle? if several people were to band together to disobey unlawful, unconstitutional orders, my outlook would not be so bleak. as it is now, (taking libya as an example and what is being said about and done to the OWS people) i believe the american public at large will be screwed. especially those who don't fit the mold of whatever weekly definition of "good patriots" and the non-conformists.

maybe the .mil will not be the biggest perpetrators to go after american citizens, but you can bet your *** the po-lice will be.

+Rep for "Give a +Rep, Get a +Rep", and for an absolutely awesome post!

And the Police are probably a bigger problem because the Corruption in our Legal System allows them to literally get away with Murder, regardless if they are obeying their Chain of Obedience or not.

donnay
11-28-2011, 08:20 PM
Hollywood is also making movies like-- The Siege, Outbreak and other movies where troops are on the streets. It's all done to acclimate the people to seeing troops on Main Street, USA.

They have militarized the police, to the point, they are a standing army all unto themselves, that is also how they got around Posse Comitatus since Bush Sr.

Anti Federalist
11-28-2011, 10:20 PM
maybe the .mil will not be the biggest perpetrators to go after american citizens, but you can bet your *** the po-lice will be.

That.

Count on it.

The cops are the standing army.

And they are pumped and amped to light our asses up.

Anti Federalist
11-28-2011, 10:27 PM
Another top notch job by Alex and team.



Yes, Americans Will Be Targeted As Terrorists Under the NDAA

Republican Congressman Amash warns that bill can be applied to U.S. citizens

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Infowars.com
Monday, November 28, 2011

Controversy over whether or not Americans are exempt from a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act bill, set to be voted on this week by the Senate, which defines the the entirety of the United States as a battleground in the war on terror, has been addressed by Republican Congressman Justin Amash, who warns that the bill does apply to U.S. citizens.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/February2009/230209top.jpg

As we previously reported, under the ‘worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial’ provision of S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which is set to be up for a vote on the Senate floor this week, the legislation will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who supports the bill.

That provoked concerns that American citizens could be targeted as terrorists and indefinitely detained without trial or charge.

“One section of these provisions, section 1031, would be interpreted as allowing the military to capture and indefinitely detain American citizens on U.S. soil. Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the U.S. military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil. That alone should alarm my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but there are other problems with these provisions that must be resolved,” Colorado Senator Mark Udall said in a speech earlier this month.

Following an ACLU alert on the legislation, some pointed out that the text of the bill actually exempts Americans from being detained under the new “homeland battlefield” designation under the proviso that “the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”

However, as Republican Congressman Justin Amash told the The Grand Rapids Press today, the language of the bill is “carefully crafted to mislead the public.”

“Note that it does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary,” Amash wrote on his Facebook page.

The controversy over whether or not the text of the bill suggests the legislation applies to U.S. citizens is largely inconsequential given the fact that every piece of anti-terror legislation passed since 9/11 has been used against Americans, both at home and abroad.

The Patriot Act was passed in the name of giving federal authorities the tools to catch terrorists, but it has been used in hundreds of cases against American citizens, often in cases that have no relation whatsoever to terrorism.

Furthermore, as Ron Paul has pointed out, Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen who has never been charged with any crime, was the victim of extrajudicial killing because of the same unconstitutional legalese that defines the entire globe as a “battlefield,” where the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens are declared null and void if they are designated as terrorists by the federal government.

Indeed, national intelligence director Dennis Blair openly stated last year that, “Being a U.S. citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives.”

Recall that José Padilla, an American citizen, was held without charge for 3 and a half years as an “enemy combatant” and denied a trial in civilian court, after being accused of planning to detonate a “dirty bomb,” an accusation that was enough to keep Padilla in a military brig for over three years yet was never proven.

As far back as December 2002, the Washington Post reported that a “parallel legal system” had been put in place under the auspices of the war on terror, in which terrorism suspects — U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike — may be investigated, jailed, interrogated, tried and punished without legal protections guaranteed by the ordinary system.”

The “battlefield” provision of the NDAA is nothing new, it is merely an updating of existing policy that has been applied to American citizens on numerous occasions over the last decade.

The difference is that the danger of American citizens being detained without trial as terrorists on frivolous pretexts is an even greater danger now given that the Department of Homeland Security has characterized behavior such as buying gold, owning guns, using a watch or binoculars, donating to charity, using the telephone or email to find information, using cash, and all manner of mundane behaviors as potential indicators of domestic terrorism.


http://www.infowars.com/yes-americans-will-be-targeted-as-terrorists-under-the-ndaa/

Danke
11-28-2011, 10:31 PM
Article is mixing up terms. American Citizen and U.S. citizen.

BattleFlag1776
11-28-2011, 10:36 PM
this may be a controversial statement: but military families breed dependency, careerism and complacency.

Having grown up in a military town, I can attest firsthand to the legitimacy of that statement. There's nothing controversial about it at all.

NewRightLibertarian
11-28-2011, 10:39 PM
Another top notch job by Alex and team.

Hey, there's no 'sources' in that Infowars post! It's all crazy baseless nonsense. Just thought you should know.

flightlesskiwi
11-28-2011, 10:45 PM
Hey, there's no 'sources' in that Infowars post! It's all crazy baseless nonsense. Just thought you should know.

i think they got it from a source in Shitsville, Terrorworld but forgot to link it.

flightlesskiwi
11-28-2011, 10:46 PM
Having grown up in a military town, I can attest firsthand to the legitimacy of that statement. There's nothing controversial about it at all.

ah, yes. and the town becomes dependent on the dependent families, as well.

a big ball of dependency.

in fact, military spouses and children are officially referred to as "dependents".

one more time: dependent.

BattleFlag1776
11-28-2011, 10:54 PM
ah, yes. and the town becomes dependent on the dependent families, as well.

a big ball of dependency.

in fact, military spouses and children are officially referred to as "dependents".

one more time: dependent.

I'd expect that from a "civilian." :) But you are correct and that dependent class also includes the MIC crew and the Civil Service folks.

DamianTV
11-29-2011, 03:00 AM
Article is mixing up terms. American Citizen and U.S. citizen.

I think it is State Citizen vs U.S. citizen, but at this point, it is a matter of semantics.

Cutlerzzz
11-29-2011, 03:10 AM
I don't have anything to hide. What are you, a bunch of terrorists?

ZanZibar
11-29-2011, 11:05 AM
Rand Paul vs John McCain:

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/195889-sens-paul-mccain-clash-over-terrorist-detainee-amendment-

Matt Collins
11-29-2011, 12:48 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rghhz_t5POo&feature=uploademail

NewRightLibertarian
11-29-2011, 01:39 PM
Rand kicks ass. Where the haters at?

Matt Collins
11-29-2011, 01:49 PM
Rand corners McCain on "indefinite detention" of US citizens!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUHh1iqe43w

Matt Collins
11-29-2011, 03:03 PM
Sen. Rand Paul Defends Constitutional Liberties

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today in the U.S. Senate, Sen. Rand Paul took to the Senate floor as well as recorded a video message against the indefinite detention of United States citizens in defense of constitutional liberties.

CLICK HERE TO SEE SEN. PAUL’S ADDRESS REGARDING DETAINEES (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rghhz_t5POo)


TRANSCRIPT:


James Madison, father of the Constitution, warned, “The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become instruments of tyranny at home.”

Abraham Lincoln had similar thoughts, saying “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

During war there has always been a struggle to preserve Constitutional liberties. During the Civil War the right of habeas corpus was suspended. Newspapers were closed down. Fortunately, these rights were restored after the war.

The discussion now to suspend certain rights to due process is especially worrisome given that we are engaged in a war that appears to have no end. Rights given up now cannot be expected to be returned. So, we do well to contemplate the diminishment of due process, knowing that the rights we lose now may never be restored.

My well-intentioned colleagues ignore these admonitions in defending provisions of the Defense bill pertaining to detaining suspected terrorists.

Their legislation would arm the military with the authority to detain indefinitely – without due process or trial – SUSPECTED al-Qaida sympathizers, including American citizens apprehended on American soil.

I want to repeat that. We are talking about people who are merely SUSPECTED of a crime. And we are talking about American citizens.

If these provisions pass, we could see American citizens being sent to Guantanamo Bay.

This should be alarming to everyone watching this proceeding today. Because it puts every single American citizen at risk.

There is one thing and one thing only protecting innocent Americans from being detained at will at the hands of a too-powerful state – our constitution, and the checks we put on government power. Should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, well, then the terrorists have won.

Detaining citizens without a court trial is not American. In fact, this alarming arbitrary power is reminiscent of Egypt’s “permanent” Emergency Law authorizing preventive indefinite detention, a law that provoked ordinary Egyptians to tear their country apart last spring and risk their lives to fight.

Recently, Justice Scalia affirmed this idea in his dissent in the Hamdi case, saying:

“Where the Government accuses a citizen of waging war against it, our constitutional tradition has been to prosecute him in federal court for treason or some other crime.”

He concluded: “The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive

Justice Scalia was, as he often does, following the wisdom of our founding fathers.

As Franklin wisely warned against, we should not attempt to trade liberty for security, if we do we may end up with neither. And really, what security does this indefinite detention of Americans give us?

The first and flawed premise, both here and in the badly misname patriot act, is that our pre-911 police powers were insufficient to combat international terrorism.

This is simply not borne out by the facts.

Congress long ago made it a crime to provide, or to conspire to provide, material assistance to al-Qaida or other listed foreign terrorist organizations. Material assistance includes virtually anything of value – including legal or political advice, education, books, newspapers, lodging or otherwise. The Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of the sweeping prohibition.

And this is not simply about catching terrorists after the fact, as others may insinuate. The material assistance law is in fact forward-looking and preventive, not backward-looking and reactive.

Al-Qaida adherents may be detained, prosecuted and convicted for conspiring to violate the material assistance prohibition before any injury to an American. Jose Padilla, for instance, was convicted and sentenced to 17 years in prison for conspiring to provide material assistance to al-Qaida. The criminal law does not require dead bodies on the sidewalk before it strikes at international terrorism.

Indeed, conspiracy law and prosecutions in civilian courts have been routinely invoked after 9/11, to thwart embryonic international terrorism.

Michael Chertoff, then head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and later Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, testified shortly after 9/11 to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He underscored that, “the history of this government in prosecuting terrorists in domestic courts has been one of unmitigated success and one in which the judges have done a superb job of managing the courtroom and not compromising our concerns about security and our concerns about classified information.”

Moreover, there is no evidence that criminal justice procedures have frustrated intelligence collection about international terrorism. Suspected terrorists have repeatedly waived both the right to an attorney and the right to silence. Additionally, Miranda warnings are not required at all when the purpose of interrogation is public safety.

The authors of this bill errantly maintain that the bill would not enlarge the universe of detainees eligible for indefinite detention in military custody. This is simply not the case.

The current Authorization for Use of Military Force confines the universe to persons implicated in the 9/11 attacks or who harbored those who were.

The detainee provision would expand the universe to include any person said to be “part of” or “substantially” supportive of al-Qaida or Taliban.

These terms are dangerously vague. More than a decade after 9/11, the military has been unable to define the earmarks of membership in or affiliation to either organization.

Some say that to prevent another 9/11 attack we must fight terrorism with a war mentality and not treat potential attackers as criminals. For combatants captured on the battlefield, I tend to agree.

But 9/11 didn't succeed because we granted the terrorists due process. 9/11 attacks did not succeed because al-Qaida was so formidable, but because of human error. The Defense Department withheld intelligence from the FBI. No warrants were denied. The warrants weren't requested. The FBI failed to act on repeated pleas from its field agents, agents who were in possession of laptop with information that might have prevented 9/11.

These are not failures of laws. They are not failures of procedures. They are failures of imperfect men and women in bloated bureaucracies. No amount of liberty sacrificed on the altar of the state will ever change that.

A full accounting of our human failures by 9/11 Commission would have proven that enhanced cooperation between law enforcement and the intelligence community, not military action or vandalizing liberty at home, is the key to thwarting international terrorism.

We should not have to sacrifice our Liberty to be safe. We cannot allow the rules to change to fit the whims of those in power. The rules, the binding chains of our constitution were written so that it didn’t MATTER who was in power. In fact, they were written to protect us and our rights, from those who hold power without good intentions. We are not governed by saints or angels. Our constitution allows for that. This bill does not.

Finally, the detainee provisions of the defense authorization bill do another grave harm to freedom: they imply perpetual war for the first time in the history of the United States.

No benchmarks are established that would ever terminate the conflict with al-Qaida, Taliban, or other foreign terrorist organizations. In fact, this bill explicitly states that no part of this bill is to imply any restriction on the authorization to use force. No congressional review is allowed or imagined. No victory is defined. No peace is possible if victory is made impossible by definition.

To disavow the idea that the exclusive congressional power to declare war somehow allows the President to continue war forever at whim, I will also be offering an amendment this week to de-authorize the Iraq War.

Use of military force must begin in congress with its authorization. And it should end in congress with its termination. Congress should not be ignored or an afterthought in these matters, and must reclaim its constitutional duties.

The detainee provisions ask us to give up consist rights as an emergency or exigency but make no room for expiration. Perhaps the Emergency Law in Egypt began with good intentions in 1958 but somehow it came to be hated, to be despised with such vigor that protesters chose to burn themselves alive rather allow continuation of indefinite detention.

Today, someone must stand up for the rights of the American people to be free. We must stand up to tyranny disguised as security. I urge my colleagues to reject the language on detainees in this bill, and to support amendments to strip these provisions from the defense bill.

specsaregood
11-29-2011, 03:08 PM
I don't have anything to hide. What are you, a bunch of terrorists?

Well if you listen to mccains speech, he defines it as anybody that might be a threat to the united states. So unless you are completely incapable of being a threat, that includes you. :)

coastie
11-29-2011, 04:28 PM
Well if you listen to mccains speech, he defines it as anybody that might be a threat to the united states. So unless you are completely incapable of being a threat, that includes you. :)

I wonder if this applies to Congress as well...


:rolleyes::mad:

specsaregood
11-29-2011, 04:38 PM
I wonder if this applies to Congress as well...
:rolleyes::mad:

Yes, it occurred to me that a President Paul could wield this power in a way that would make many of these rats none too happy....

ZanZibar
11-29-2011, 05:09 PM
Mike Lee and Jim DeMint voted against the amendment that would've killed the illegal indefinite detention aspect of the bill: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00210

ninepointfive
11-29-2011, 05:22 PM
Makin a list, and checkin it twice! Just to see who's been naughty and nice... Freedom Fighter Ron Paul and his friends are comin' to town!

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/001/Graph/Ron_Paul_Santa.JPG

Matt Collins
11-30-2011, 12:59 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKaTxjxnYfE&feature=uploademail

ZanZibar
12-02-2011, 10:16 PM
McCain and Lindsey Graham....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7tavj7Jhko
Courtesy of Mike Church radio show