Tag Archives: ndaa
By: Right.is –
Right about now, you ought to be scared to death.
Obama claims he will develop “An Appropriate Legal Regime” to permanently detain people PRIOR to having committed any crime.
The idea of these detentions would be to prevent any individual from committing a FUTURE crime. Obama even goes as far as to say he might detain someone up to TEN YEARS before they MIGHT commit a crime.
Aren’t you glad they passed the NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT? Be sure to check out:
- Judge Strikes Down 2012 NDAA! Rules Obama Must Obey Constitution
- Obama Passes Bigger, Badder NDAA in 2014 – Legal to date!
- NDAA: What Obama Doesn’t Want You To Know!
Effectively, the way Obama skirts around the Constitution (which we all know he is a professional at) is by having the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Sections 1021 and 1022, which authorizes indefinite military detention, without charge or without trial, any person, including an American citizen, and applies the “Laws of War,” to U.S. soil, making the United States legally a battlefield.
Want the REAL dirt on the National Defense Authorization Act? It removes all of your rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights except the 2nd Amendment, and you know how hard he’s trying to get rid of that. The Army can come for you at 3am if they want, collect you, throw you in a hole, not tell anyone where you are, and never charge you with anything.
Sounds safe given Obama’s track record right? For more information and an in depth explanation of the act that is already law, I suggest the video below. You might be a bit more motivated to attend Operation American Spring on May 16th in Washington, DC. If you have any thoughts about this not being Constitutional, try not to forget what Supreme Court Justice Scalia said a month or so ago: Supreme Court Justice Scalia: “You are kidding yourself if you think Internment Camps could not happen again“.
Wake the hell up! Time is running out! Obama has to be stopped while there is still time. Otherwise, one day you’ll wake up in a very scary place.
Obama explains the FEMA Camps.
As Obama’s administration continues to creep closer and closer to tyranny, one could only imagine how far he’d go before Americans started to revolt. Lucky for Obama, he’s already begun plans to contain the situation, allowing him to progress with his agenda with as little resistance as possible—through the use of FEMA camps.
We all know, Obama is working all hours of the day to try and disarm as much of the population as possible, and although he claims it’s in the name of American safety, many U.S. citizens know otherwise. But if it were to come to a point where Americans needed to be suppressed in order for the preservation of Obama’s reign to prevail, what would he do?
Obama has recently discussed his new proposal of “prolonged detention,” and that isn’t based off of a crime you have already committed. In fact, Obama explains that he intends to incarcerate, until he sees fit, anyone that poses a threat to America and may potentially commit a crime in the future, including Americans.
Our Commander-in-Chief explains that these centers will be placed for all Guantanamo Bay prisoners that are too dangerous to let go and still remain a threat to our nation. He goes on to mention that anyone else that is captured in this preemptive nature will also be housed here. In the case of a revolt, how many American’s do you think will be deemed a threat to United States of America and indefinitely detained? Where would Obama store all these people?
Enter FEMA camps.
Obama has ordered the secret construction of FEMA camps all over the country and he’s told his minions to do it as quietly as possible. These FEMA camps may have the appearance of a helpful establishment placed there in preparation for a time of need (i.e. natural disaster), but look a little closer and you may see otherwise.
All FEMA facilities have several layers of fencing, all of which for some “mysterious” reason, have barbed wire at the top, pointing toward the inside of the fence. Why would you want to keep people you are helping in? Along with this, electronically operated turnstiles guard the only entrance(s) into the gated sections. Cameras can also be seen watching closely over the supposedly abandoned sites, and wind socks have been placed anticipating the arrival of helicopters.
FEMA camps are popping up in extremely inconspicuous places—an abandoned train yard, extra space on airport property, or even industrial complexes. Want to see where the closest one is located near you?
Check it out here—it may be closer than you think.
On top of all this, the Army is also recruiting for what they are calling an, “Internment/Resettlement Specialist (31E).” Of course they would love to explain that these specialist’s expertise would be used in other regions of the planet, and as you all know, the military isn’t allowed to operate in the United States. If this is the case, then why the sudden need to recruit so many more?
Obama will soon take advantage of the law that Bush passed—but never used—under his administration. Bush passed a law that would allow the current President of the United States to declare martial law at their discretion under executive action—and we all know how much Obama loves to bypass congress. Once this is in place, the military will have the power to act as Obama’s henchmen, and throw any freedom loving patriots into these FEMA Camps.
Think they saw all the warning signs we have?
People need to act!
We can stand and fight now or end up in the history books.
A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court means the federal government now has an open door to “detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker,” according to critics.
The high court this week refused to review an appeals court decision that said the president and U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals.
The firm of William J. Olson, P.C., which filed a friend-of-the court brief asking the court to step in, noted that not a single justice dissented from the denial of the request for review.
“The court ducked, having no appetite to confront both political parties in order to protect the citizens from military detention,” the legal team said in a statement to WND. “The government has won, creating a tragic moment for the people – and what will someday be viewed as an embarrassment for the court.”
WND reported when the indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act were adopted and later challenged in court.
The controversial provision authorizes the military, under presidential authority, to arrest, kidnap, detain without trial and hold indefinitely American citizens thought to “represent an enduring security threat to the United States.”
Journalist Chris Hedges was among the plaintiffs charging the law could be used to target journalists who report on terror-related issues.
A friend-of-the-court brief submitted in the case stated: “The central question now before this court is whether the federal judiciary will stand idly by while Congress and the president establish the legal framework for the establishment of a police state and the subjugation of the American citizenry through the threat of indefinite military arrest and detention, without the right to counsel, the right to confront one’s accusers, or the right to trial.”
The brief was submitted to the Supreme Court by attorneys with the U.S. Justice Foundation of Ramona, California; Friedman Harfenist Kraut & Perlstein of Lake Success, New York; and William J. Olson, P.C. of Vienna, Virginia.
The attorneys are Michael Connelly, Steven J. Harfenist, William J. Olson, Herbert W. Titus, John S. Miles, Jeremiah L. Morgan and Robert J. Olson.
They were adding their voices to the chorus asking the Supreme Court to overturn the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to challenge the law adopted by Congress.
The brief was on behalf of Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, Virginia Sen. Dick Black, the U.S. Justice Foundation, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Center for Media & Democracy, Downsize DC Foundation, Downsize DC.org, Free Speech Defense & Education Fund, Free Speech Coalition, Western Journalism Center, The Lincoln Institute, Institute on the Constitution, Abraham Lincoln Foundation and Conservative Legal Defense & Education Fund.
The 2014 NDAA was fast-tracked through the U.S. Senate, with no time for discussion or amendments, while most Americans were distracted by the scandal surrounding A&E’s troubles with “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson.
Eighty-five of 100 senators voted in favor of the new version of the NDAA, which had already been quietly passed by the House of Representatives.
Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, and others filed a lawsuit in 2012 against the Obama administration to challenge the legality of an earlier version of the NDAA.
It is Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA, and its successors, that drew a lawsuit by Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Jennifer Bolen, Noam Chomsky, Alex O’Brien, Kai Warg All, Brigitta Jonsottir and the group U.S. Day of Rage. Many of the plaintiffs are authors or reporters who stated that the threat of indefinite detention by the U.S. military already had altered their activities.
“It’s clearly unconstitutional,” Hedges said of the bill. “It is a huge and egregious assault against our democracy. It overturns over 200 years of law, which has kept the military out of domestic policing.”
Hedges is a former foreign correspondent for the New York Times and was part of a team of reporters awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for the paper’s coverage of global terrorism.
The friend-of-the-court brief warned the precedent “leaves American citizens vulnerable to arrest and detention, without the protection of the Bill of Rights, under either the plaintiff’s or the government’s theory of the case.”
“The judiciary must not await subsequent litigation to resolve this issue, as the nature of military detention is that American citizens then would have no adequate legal remedy,” the brief explained.
John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, said that once again, the U.S. Supreme Court “has shown itself to be an advocate for the government, no matter how illegal its action, rather than a champion of the Constitution and, by extension, the American people.”
“No matter what the Obama administration may say to the contrary, actions speak louder than words, and history shows that the U.S. government is not averse to locking up its own citizens for its own purposes,” he said. “What the NDAA does is open the door for the government to detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker.
Whitehead said that “according to government guidelines for identifying domestic extremists – a word used interchangeably with terrorists, that technically applies to anyone exercising their First Amendment rights in order to criticize the government.”
There already is precedent for the mass detainment of citizens.
In 1944, while the U.S. was defending itself in a war launched by Japan, the government rounded up thousands of Japanese Americans and placed them in camps under the approval of the high court in its Korematsu v. United States decision.
The new law authorizes the president to use “all necessary and appropriate force” to jail those “suspected” of helping terrorists.
The Obama administration had claimed in court that the NDAA does not apply to American citizens, but Rutherford attorneys said the language of the law “is so unconstitutionally broad and vague as to open the door to arrest and indefinite detentions for speech and political activity that might be critical of the government.”
The law specifically allows for the arrests of those who “associate” or “substantially support” terror groups.
“These terms, however, are not defined in the statute, and the government itself is unable to say who exactly is subject to indefinite detention based upon these terms, leaving them open to wide ranging interpretations which threaten those engaging in legitimate First Amendment activities,” Rutherford said.
At the trial court, on Sept. 12, 2012, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern District Court of New York ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and placed a permanent injunction on the indefinite detention provision.
Obama then appealed, and the 2nd Circuit authorized the government detention program.
Since the law passed, multiple states have passed laws banning its enforcement. Herb Titus, a constitutional expert, previously told WND Forrest’s ruling underscored “the arrogance of the current regime, in that they will not answer questions that they ought to answer to a judge because they don’t think they have to.”
The judge explained that the plaintiffs alleged paragraph 1021 is “constitutionally infirm, violating both their free speech and associational rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment as well due process rights guaranteed by the 5th Amendment.”
She noted the government “did not call any witnesses, submit any documentary evidence or file any declarations.”
“It must be said that it would have been a rather simple matter for the government to have stated that as to these plaintiffs and the conduct as to which they would testify, that [paragraph] 1021 did not and would not apply, if indeed it did or would not,” she wrote.
Instead, the administration only responded with, “I’m not authorized to make specific representations regarding specific people.”
Forrest wrote that the court’s “attempt to avoid having to deal with the constitutional aspects of the challenge was by providing the government with prompt notice in the form of declarations and depositions of the … conduct in which plaintiffs are involved and which they claim places them in fear of military detention.”
“To put it bluntly, to eliminate these plaintiffs’ standing simply by representing that their conduct does not fall within the scope of 1021 would have been simple. The government chose not to do so – thereby ensuring standing and requiring this court to reach the merits of the instant motion,” she said.
“Plaintiffs have stated a more than plausible claim that the statute inappropriately encroaches on their rights under the 1st Amendment.”
Article contributed by Right.is.
By: Sherwood Ross | Veterans Today –
Is the Obama regime preparing for mass arrests of Americans? Some indicators suggest this is a real possibility.
It has all the laws it needs to imprison anyone should it plan to make mass arrests (thanks, Congress, for the unconstitutional Patriot Act andNational Defense Authorization Act).
It has illegally compiled lists of some 8 million names, (thank you, FBI and NSA).
It has vast stockpiles of weapons and bullets, (salute the Pentagon!)
It has $385 million worth of new dormitories (i.e., prisons?) tucked away on military basescalled “National Emergency Centers” (thanks, Halliburton construction subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root).
And it has invested 120,000 on-duty officers from 73 law enforcement agencies with authority to arrest “suspects.”
If you think “it can’t happen here,” as described in the 1935 Sinclair Lewis novel of that name, think again. What’s to stop USG from doing Stateside what it has been doing around the world? After all, who has already begun killing American citizens with illegal drone strikes if not our totalitarian trendsetter President Barack Obama?
As Bill Blum, a Washington investigative journalist writes in his “Anti-Empire Report,” since the end of World War 2, the U.S. has interfered in the elections of at least 30 countries and dropped bombs on people in as many others and attempted to overthrow more than 50, mostly democratic, governments, such as Iran in 1953 and Chile in 1973. What’s stopping it from turning a democracy into a dictatorship?
President Obama has gone so far down the totalitarian road, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Executive Director Anthony Romero proclaimed, “I am disgusted with this president…it’s (his) policies on civil liberties and national security issues I’m disgusted by.”
Romero added, Obama’s actions “raises serious questions about the administration’s commitment to the rule of law.” That’s a polite way of saying the president is a law-breaker. (In Chicago, the term to describe such people is ‘gangster.’) And extrajudicial killings are official Obama policy. As Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair claimed in Congressional testimony, the U.S. can, with executive approval, kill U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism.
“It is alarming to hear that the Obama administration is asserting that the president can authorize the assassination of Americans abroad, even if they are far from any battlefield and may have never taken up arms against the U.S., but have only been deemed to constitute and unspecified ‘threat,’’ points out Ben Wizner, staff lawyer for the ACLU National Security Project.
The key phrase here is “unspecified ‘threat’”, another way of saying “suspected.” As George Mickum, a lawyer who has represented Guantanamo Bay prisoners, told Inter Press Service (IPS), “We have killed thousands of innocent civilians while attempting to target alleged operatives. And let us not forget how frequently our intelligence has been wrong about alleged operatives. As the civilians were not engaged in hostile actions, their murders by the Obama regime become ‘war crimes.’” (Dear George, “we” have not done anything!)
And constitutional scholar Francis Boyle of the University of Illinois, Champaign, told IPS, “This extrajudicial execution of human beings constitutes murder, war crimes, and because the drone strikes are widespread and systemic, crimes against humanity. Because Obama’s drone strikes almost exclusively target Muslims and People of Color, they verge upon genocide.”
Boyle said, further, “The U.S. government has now established a ‘death list’ for U.S. citizens abroad akin to those established by Latin American dictatorships during their so-called dirty wars.”
If you think the USG will not condemn more Americans to death without trials, ponder the words of attorney John Whitehead, head of the Rutherford Institute of Charlottesville, Va.: “Unfortunately, ‘we the people’ have become so trusting, so gullible, so easily distracted, so out-of-touch, so compliant and so indoctrinated on the idea that our government will always do the right thing by us that we have ignored the warning signs all around us, or at least failed to recognize them as potential red flags.” Whitehead is the author of “A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State.”
To our knowledge,the Obama regime has not answered questions Whitehead put to it, which (my paraphrasing) include:
Q: Why did the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) buy 1.6 billion rounds of hollow-point ammunition and 7,000 fully-automatic 5.56x45mm NATO ‘personal defense weapons’?
Q: Why do the Postal Service, Department of Education, Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration buy up weapons and ammunition in bulk?
Q: Why does the Department of Agriculture need 320,000 rounds of hollow point bullets and .40 caliber submachine guns?
Q: Why is FEMA stockpiling massive quantities of emergency supplies?
Q: Why is DHS giving away millions of dollars’ worth of federal security grants to states that federal intelligence agencies ruled have “no specific foreign or domestic terrorism threat?”
Whitehead points to a New York Times article quoting a Pentagon source who says that under Obama police departments have received tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft.
In addition to militarizing the police, Obama’s USG is building a Main Core database, Whitehead says, that “would be used by military officials to locate and round up Americans seen as threats to national security…to be carried out by the Army and FEMA.
Whitehead concludes, “Taken individually, these questions are alarming enough. However, when viewed collectively, they leave one wondering what exactly the U.S. government is preparing for and whether American citizens shouldn’t be preparing, as well, for that eventuality when our so-called ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people’ is no longer answerable to ‘we the people.’”
Sherwood Ross, who formerly reported for the Chicago Daily News and worked as a columnist for wire services, currently operates a public relations firm “for good causes”. Reach him at [email protected]
The Australian federal police obtained preventative detention orders for at least three people before the counter-terrorism raids in New South Wales, in what may be the first time the anti-terrorism powers have been used.
A spokesman for the AFP confirmed late on Friday that three men had been detained under the orders following the raids and had now been released without charge.
Preventative detention orders formed part of a tranche of anti-terrorism powers granted over a decade ago, and can be sought to detain people for lengthy periods of time without charge.
The US House of Representatives approved an annual defense spending bill early Thursday after rejecting a proposed amendment that would have prevented the United States government from indefinitely detaining American citizens.
An amendment introduced in the House on Wednesday this week asked that Congress repeal a controversial provision placed in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 that has ever since provided the executive branch with the power to arrest and detain indefinitely any US citizen thought to be affiliated with Al-Qaeda or associated organizations.
“This amendment would eliminate indefinite detention in the United States and its territories,” Rep. Adam Smith (D-Washington), a co-author of the failed amendment, said during floor debate on Wednesday, “So basically anybody that we captured, who we suspected of terrorist activity, would no longer be subject to indefinite detention, as is now, currently, the law.”
“That is an enormous amount of power to give the executive, to take someone and lock them up without due process,” Smith added. “It is an enormous amount of power to grant the executive, and I believe places liberty and freedom at risk in this country.”
Pres. Barack Obama vowed when he signed the 2012 NDAA into law on December 31, 2011 that he would not use the indefinite detention powers provided to him by Congress. When that provision was challenged in federal court, however, the White House fought back adamantly and appealed a District Court ruling that initially reversed the indefinite detention clause, eventually sending the challenge to the Supreme Court where it stalled until earlier this month with the justices there said they would not consider the case.
The bill sponsored by Smith and co-author Rep. Paul Broun (R-Georgia) would have given the legislative branch a chance to repeal the same provisions that SCOTUS declined to hear, but the bipartisan amendment failed on a vote of 191 to 230.
A separate proposal from Rep. Smith meant to expedite the shut-down of the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba was also rejected early Thursday; an amendment from Rep. Dennis Ross (R-Florida) intended to cut federal funding for recreational facilities at Gitmo, however, was approved in the NDAA draft that left the House on Thursday.
On Twitter, Smith said he was “disappointed” but “won’t stop fighting to pass this critical legislation.”
And while the White House is unlikely to abandon its own fight with regards to keep the indefinite detention provision intact, the Obama administration threatened to vote this year’s NDAA because it would continue to complicate the president’s promise to close the Guantanamo Bay facility — a vow older than his own administration.
“If this year’s Defense Authorization bill continues unwarranted restrictions regarding Guantanamo detainees, the president will veto the bill,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said in a statement Wednesday evening.
When the 2011 NDAA passed Congress with the controversial indefinite detention provision included, the White House said at the time that it would veto the legislation before Pres. Obama eventually balked.
Forget your resolution to stop eating Bon-bons, resolve to end these ongoing crimes and help take our country back
As 2013 nears the end of its life, most of us are looking ahead to 2014. However, for the criminal cabal who rule the world, dates have little meaning. They have a standing plan to perpetrate evil 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with the end game always in mind. All of which transcends some silly number on a calendar. So instead of focusing on the upcoming New Year, let us focus on the core operations of the open criminal “mafia” who now occupy many elected seats in government. In my opinion, the following is a list of criminal activity that needs to end in 2014. However, as I stated earlier, evil operates 24/7. It takes no vacation and doesn’t watch football. So we need to raise a standard to combat evil, and this nation needs your help. Pick one of these issues that suit you, or pick your own, and make it a point to “go to war” in 2014 to kill it, or at least cripple it.
Common Core– I listed this first because it is designed to target the most defenseless, and, arguably, the most impressionable among us. Our children. As usual, the Feds took the state’s money and promised a portion back to them if they signed on to this program. If you haven’t familiarized yourself with Common Core, it looks to be right out of the Communist playbook. I covered Common Core in 2013. You can link to my story and video here.
The Nation Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) – Not much more can be written about this blatant, criminal usurpation of everything our Constitution stands for. How can a country with our history let something like this take effect? For writing this article, I can be detained indefinitely by our criminal government. However, if you have a pulse, and you must if you are reading this, you are just as guilty as I am and can be detained as well, according to the NDAA.
Agenda 21– In my opinion, this signifies the “head of the snake” for the elite. Agenda 21 is really the framework that most of these other criminal activities operate inside. Perhaps no other policy enacted by un-elected bureaucrats has the potential to harm us more than Agenda 21. I covered Agenda 21 in 2013. You can link to my story and video here.
Reclaim Ownership of State Lands– As I stated earlier, Agenda 21 is the framework of this particular agenda of evil. To be fully implemented, the elite need to move us out of the millions of acres of open land and herd us into compact cities. Sadly, the Feds have a head-start out west. We have the law on our side, but we need to act. I covered this topic twice in 2013. You can link to both of my stories and videos here and here.
End the FED– The private Federal Reserve Bank (FED) just celebrated 100 years of destruction for this nation. The FED, in my opinion, has done more damage to this country than any other organized entity. Brilliantly, the Fed maneuvered itself, through deception, into a position where they have “gone around” the constitution. The Constitution contains only two sections dealing with monetary issues. Section 8 permits Congress to coin money and to regulate its value. Section 10 denies states the right to coin or to print their own money. Yet, the FED is in control of our nation’s money. Make the FED go away, and many of our problems go away as well.
Obamacare– I have to fight to hold my breakfast down when I think of this travesty. How can citizens of a supposedly free country be forced, at the barrel of a gun, to buy a product from a private company? And here is the rub, it has nothing to do with helping the less fortunate, uninsured among us. It is all about, once again, a Federal power grab. If you see Obamacare as anything other than what it is intended for, total population control, then you need to read more than just headlines.
Militant Homosexual Agenda– I know that being gay is not a crime, and what people do in their own bedroom is their business. Moreover, I have no desire to eliminate homosexuals from the planet. What I do wish to eliminate is the overwhelming onslaught of the militant homosexual agenda. When gays “came out of the closet” in the 70’s, they did so in an organized, planned, patient fashion. They knew it would take 25 or 30 years to change public opinion, but they were relentless. Frankly, our side could take a page from their playbook on how to elicit change. Now, instead of just wanting “the same rights as anyone else” the homosexual movement wants to force the gay agenda into EVERY nook and cranny of our culture. Has anyone, I mean anyone, in the homosexual camp stopped to think this through? If everyone was gay, which is what I think that they lay awake dreaming about, then we would not procreate and human beings would cease to exist rather quickly. I contend that the entire homosexual agenda is for that purpose. What is at its core? Eugenics
Impeach the Imposter in the White House– Sure, it seems highly unlikely that we will boot the imposter occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue before his term is up, but we shouldn’t stop trying. If a common citizen was suspected for as many crimes as Obama and his administration, there would be entire task force created to stop the crime wave that these outlaws have perpetrated. But, not only does this mafia operate with impunity, ½ the country still supports them. I covered Obama in 2013, specifically his voluminous amount of lies. My story about that can be found here.
Well, there is what I have. I am certain, and frankly hoping, that some of you who read this can add to this list of crimes. Is 2014 the year that we throw off our bonds to realize, and more importantly, fight for our God given liberty? I do not know the answer to that one, but I do know that there is no shortage of causes. Till now, there has only been a shortage of good people willing to make a stand. Sure, you can throw away the Bon-bons for 2014. But, please do not be responsible for throwing away the future of our posterity with your inaction.
—-Article contributed by James White of NorthWest Liberty News