NDAA Does Apply to Americans, and here's the text that says so!!!

November 2nd 2012

(Natural News) In the aftermath of the signing of the NDAA by the traitorous President Obama, some citizens remain completely hoodwinked by the language of the bill, running around the internet screaming that the law "does not apply to American citizens." This is, naturally, part of the side effect of having such a dumbed-down education system where people can't even parse the English language anymore. If you read the bill and understand what it says, it clearly offers absolutely no protections of U.S. citizens. In fact, it affirms that Americans are subjected to indefinite detainment under "existing authorities." Let's parse it intelligently, shall we? First off, the offending section of the bill that used to be called 1031 was moved to 1021. Here is the title: (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-...) 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. The two relevant sections to consider are titled and stated as follows; (d) CONSTRUCTION. -- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force. By PARSING the language here, we must split it into two sentences based on the "or" operator. This statement essentially means: Nothing in this section is intended to LIMIT the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force. Nothing in this section is intended to EXPAND the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force. In other words, this section places no limits whatsoever of the "authority of the President" to use military force (against American citizens). Keep that in mind as you read the next section: 1

(e) AUTHORITIES. -- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States. This section "e" is the section that the hoodwinked people on the internet are running around saying "protects American citizens" from the NDAA. But where do they dream up such language? If you read section (e) again, you'll discover it says nothing whatsoever about protecting American citizens from the NDAA. Instead, here's what it really says when parsed into two sentences based on the "or" operator: Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing LAW relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States. Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing AUTHORITIES relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States. In other words, section (e) only says that it does not alter "existing authorities" relating to the detention of US citizens. So to answer the question about whether this affects U.S. citizens, you have to understand "existing authorities." What are those "existing authorities?"

Existing authorities already allow indefinite detainment and the killing of American citizens
As everyone who studies history well knows, the Patriot Act already establishes an "existing authority" that anyone suspected of being involved in terrorist-related activities can be arrested and detained without trial. If you don't believe me, just Google it yourself. This is not a debated issue; it's widely recognized. Furthermore, President Obama already insists that he has the authority to kill American citizens merely by decree! As Reuters reported on October 5, 2011, a "secret panel" of government officials (who report to the President) can decide to place an American citizen on a "kill list" and then murder that person, without trial, without due process, and without even being arrested. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011...) Importantly, as Reuters reports, "Two principal legal theories were advanced [in support of the kill list authority] -- first, that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001." Are you getting this yet? So the authority ALREADY exists for the President to order the killing of an American citizen. All that is required is that they be suspected of being involved in terrorism in any way, and not a shred of evidence is required by the government to support that. There is no trial, no arraignment, no evidence and not even a hearing. You are simply accused and then disappeared.

Thus, the authority already exists, you see, and the NDAA openly states that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing AUTHORITIES..." In other words, the NDAA does nothing to protect American citizens, and it piggy-backs on the Patriot Act as well as Obama's executive "kill list" justifications to essentially place all Americans in the crosshairs of government murderers or military action. Rep. Justin Amash, a Congressman from Michigan, explains: The key to subsection 1021(e) is its claim that sec. 1021 does not "affect existing law or authorities" relating to the detention of persons arrested on U.S. soil. If the President's expansive view of his own power were in statute, that statement would be true. Instead, the section codifies the President's view as if it had always existed, authorizing detention of "persons" regardless of citizenship or where they are arrested. It then disingenuously says the bill doesn't change that view. (http://www.facebook.com/note.php?no...)

Storing food could get you labeled as a terror suspect

So then, you might be wondering, "What kinds of activities could get me accused of being involved in supporting terrorism?" And here's the kicker, because all the following activities could cause you to be arrested, detained, interrogated and even murdered all under U.S. law, thanks to Obama: Criticizing the federal government. Using cash to purchase things. Storing food and medical supplies. Owning a firearm and storing ammunition. Standing still and minding your own business near a government building. Writing something down on a piece of paper near a government building. Using a pair of binoculars. Protesting for animal rights in front of a medical lab. Protesting your government (or Wall Street). Requesting to take more than a couple thousand dollars out of your bank account in cash. You see, under existing authority, you could be labeled a "terror suspect" for engaging in any of these activities, and then LEGALLY arrested, detained, interrogated or even killed by the U.S. government, all under Obama's authority (or whatever next President takes over in Washington and perhaps does far worse things with that power...) You are already enemy combatants, folks. The NDAA does absolutely nothing to protect you from its provisions. In fact, it openly states that it does not limit existing authorities -authorities which already claim the right to subject you to indefinite military detention merely for being "suspected" of involvement with "terrorism," which could be interpreted to apply in practically any situation.

Reading between the lines

Get this through your heads, folks: to properly understand the NDAA (or any other bill), you have to learn to think like lawyers and tyrants. They don't just put language right out in plain view that says, "Americans may never be arrested or detained without due process." Instead, they create a web of legalese statements that are cross-referenced, paraphrased and specifically engineered to obfuscate their intended purpose. This is designed to hide their true intentions, not to make them clear. Furthermore, if the bill actually intended to protect Americans from the NDAA, then it should have contained language saying something like, "American citizens are specifically excluded from all the provisions of this bill, in its entirety." I'll bet anyone a thousand dollars they won't find language like that in the bill. Because it doesn't exist! And the reason it doesn't exist is because the NDAA is clearly intended to apply to American citizens. The writers of the bill have managed to fool a lot of everyday people who seem unable to parse language and read plain English with any depth of understanding. That is as much a failure of America's public education system as anything else. I find it astonishing that today's citizens can't even read and understand the grammatical structure of sentences written in plain English. This alone is a highly disturbing subject that must be addressed another day. For now, it's enough just to realize that the NDAA really does apply to you, me, and all our neighbors and friends. In signing it, Obama has cemented his place in history as the enabler of government-sponsored mass murder of its own citizens. History does repeat itself after all, huh? Hitler, Stalin, Mao and now "Obama the enabler." While Obama himself probably won't engage in the mass murder of American citizens yet, have no illusions that a future President will try to use the powers enacted by Obama to carry out such crimes.

White House Demands Military Prisons for Americans Under NDAA

September 18th 2012

The White House has asked the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals to place an emergency stay on a ruling made last week by a federal judge so that the presidents power to indefinitely detain Americans without charge is reaffirmed immediately. On Wednesday, September 12, US District Court Judge Katherine Forrest made permanent a temporary injunction she issued in May that bars the federal government from abiding by the indefinite detention provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, or NDAA. Judge Forrest ruled that a clause that gives the government the power to arrest US citizens suspected of maintaining alliances with terrorists and hold them without due process violated the Constitution and that the White House would be stripped of that ability immediately. Only hours after Judge Forrest issued last weeks ruling, the Obama administration threatened to appeal the decision, and on Monday morning they followed through. At around 9 a.m. Monday, September 17, the White House filed an emergency stay in federal appeals court in an effort to have the Second Circuit strip away Judge Forrests ruling from the week earlier. Almost immediately after Judge Forrest ruled, the Obama administration challenged the decision, writes Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist that is listed as the lead plaintiff in the case. According to Hedges, the government called Judge Forrests most recent ruling an extraordinary injunction of worldwide scope, and Executive Branch attorneys worked into the weekend to find a way to file their stay. The Justice Department sent a letter to Forrest and the Second Circuit late Friday night informing them that at 9 a.m. Monday the Obama administration would ask the Second Circuit for an emergency stay that would lift Forrests injunction, Hedges writes. This would allow Obama to continue to operate with indefinite detention authority until a formal appeal was heard. The governments decision has triggered a constitutional showdown between the president and the judiciary.

Attorney Carl Mayer, a counsel for Hedges and his co-plaintiffs, confirmed to RT early Monday that the stay was in fact filed with the Second Circuit. This may be the most significant constitutional standoff since the Pentagon Papers case, Carl Mayer says in a separate statement posted on Mr. Hedges blog. Bruce Afran, who serves as co-lead counsel along with Mayer, tells Hedges that the White House could be waging a war against the injunction to ensure that the Obama administration has ample time to turn the NDAA against any protesters participating in domestic demonstrations. A Department of Homeland Security bulletin was issued Friday claiming that the riots [in the Middle East] are likely to come to the US and saying that DHS is looking for the Islamic leaders of these likely riots, Afran tells Hedges. It is my view that this is why the government wants to reopen the NDAA so it has a tool to round up would-be Islamic protesters before they can launch any protest, violent or otherwise. Right now there are no legal tools to arrest would-be protesters. The NDAA would give the government such power. Since the request to vacate the injunction only comes about on the day of the riots, and following the DHS bulletin, it seems to me that the two are connected. The government wants to reopen the NDAA injunction so that they can use it to block protests. Hedges, who has previously reported for papers including the New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor, argued that his job as a journalist requires him to routinely interact and converse with persons that may be considered terrorists in the eyes of the US government. Under the NDAA, Americans who was 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" can be held in prison cells until the end of hostilities, vague verbiage that essentially allows for those suspect of such associations to be decided under the discretion of US President Barack Obama or any federal agent underneath him. Because the language is so vague in this law, Mr. Mayer explains to RT, if any journalist or activist is seen as reporting or offering opinions about groups that could somehow be linked not just to al-Qaeda but to any opponent of the United States or even opponents of our allies I spent many years in countries where the military had the power to arrest and detain citizens without charge, Hedges wrote when he first filed his suit in January. I have been in some of these jails. I have friends and colleagues who have disappeared into military gulags. I know the consequences of granting sweeping and unrestricted policing power to the armed forces of any nation. And while my battle may be quixotic, it is one that has to be fought if we are to have any hope of pulling this country back from corporate fascism. Monday morning, Hedges once more responded to the White Houses relentless attempts to reauthorize powers granted under the NDAA, asking, If the administration is this anxious to restore this section of the NDAA, is it because the Obama government has already used it? Or does it have plans to use the section in the immediate future? The decision to vigorously fight Forrests ruling is a further example of the Obama White Houses steady and relentless assault against civil liberties, an assault that is more severe than that carried out by George W. Bush, writes Hedges. Obama has refused to restore habeas corpus. He supports the FISA Amendment Act, which retroactively makes legal what under our Constitution has traditionally been illegal warrantless wire tapping, eavesdropping 6

and monitoring directed against US citizens. He has used the Espionage Act six times against whistle-blowers who have exposed government crimes, including war crimes, to the public. He interprets the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act as giving him the authority to assassinate US citizens, as he did the cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. And now he wants the right to use the armed forces to throw U.S. citizens into military prisons, where they will have no right to a trial and no defined length of detention. In his latest blog post, Hedges acknowledges, The government has now lost four times in a litigation that has gone on almost nine months. Additional Articles: White House continues fight to indefinitely detain Americans without charge under NDAA NDAA on trial: White House refuses to abide with ban against indefinite detention of Americans Obama fights ban on indefinite detention of Americans

Obama wins right to indefinitely detain Americans under NDAA

September 18th 2012

A lone appeals judge bowed down to the Obama administration late Monday and reauthorized the White Houses ability to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or due process.

Last week, a federal judge ruled that an temporary injunction on section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 must be made permanent, essentially barring the White House from ever enforcing a clause in the NDAA that can let them put any US citizen behind bars indefinitely over mere allegations of terrorist associations. On Monday, the US Justice Department asked for an emergency stay on that order, and hours later US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Judge Raymond Lohier agreed to intervene and place a hold on the injunction. The stay will remain in effect until at least September 28, when a three-judge appeals court panel is expected to begin addressing the issue. On December 31, 2011, US President Barack Obama signed the NDAA into law, even though he insisted on accompanying that authorization with a statement explaining his hesitance to essentially eliminate habeas corpus for the American people. The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it, President Obama wrote. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. A lawsuit against the administration was filed shortly thereafter on behalf of Pulitzer Prizewinning journalist Chris Hedges and others, and Judge Forrest agreed with them in district court last week after months of debate. With the stay issued on Monday night, however, that justices decision has been destroyed. With only Judge Lohiers single ruling on Monday, the federal government has been once again granted the go ahead to imprison any person "who was 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" until a poorly defined deadline described as merely the end of the hostilities. The ruling comes despite Judge Forrest's earlier decision that the NDAA fails to pass constitutional muster and that the legislation contained elements that had a "chilling impact on First Amendment rights Because alleged terrorists are so broadly defined as to include anyone with simple associations with enemy forces, some members of the press have feared that simply speaking with adversaries of the state can land them behind bars. "First Amendment rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be legislated away," Judge Forrest wrote last week. "This Court rejects the Government's suggestion that American citizens can be placed in military detention indefinitely, for acts they could not predict might subject them to detention." Bruce Afran, a co-counsel representing the plaintiffs in the case Hedges v Obama, said Monday that he suspects the White House has been relentless in this case because they are already employing the NDAA to imprison Americans, or plan to shortly. A Department of Homeland Security bulletin was issued Friday claiming that the riots [in the Middle East] are likely to come to the US and saying that DHS is looking for the Islamic leaders of these likely riots, Afran told Hedges for a blogpost published this week. It is my view that this is why the government wants to reopen the NDAA so it has a tool to round up would-be Islamic protesters before they can launch any protest, violent or otherwise. Right now there are no legal tools to arrest would-be protesters. 8

The NDAA would give the government such power. Since the request to vacate the injunction only comes about on the day of the riots, and following the DHS bulletin, it seems to me that the two are connected. The government wants to reopen the NDAA injunction so that they can use it to block protests. Within only hours of Afrans statement being made public, demonstrators in New York City waged a day of protests in order to commemorate the one-year anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Although it is not believed that the NDAA was used to justify any arrests, more than 180 political protesters were detained by the NYPD over the course of the days actions. One week earlier, the results of a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the American Civil Liberties Union confirmed that the FBI has been monitoring Occupy protests in at least one instance, but the bureau would not give further details, citing that decision is "in the interest of national defense or foreign policy." Josh Gerstein, a reporter with Politico, reported on the stay late Monday and acknowledged that both Forrest and Lohier were appointed to the court by President Obama.

The Medias NDAA Problem

October 31st 2012 By Tim Brown Ben Swann talks about the problem of the media not holding President Obama accountable for his words and actions on the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act). Swann points out the Barack Obama said that he would veto the bill if Section 1021 was left in the bill, which is the part of the bill that allowed for the indefinite detention of anyone, including American citizens, that the government deemed to be a terrorist. This indefinite detention would eliminate their Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights protected under the Constitution. Remember this is just for being accused or suspected of involvement with terrorism, not actually being a terrorist. Obama signed it into law on New Years Eve. Remember, he did issue a signing statement that said he would never use that power. We all believe that, right? Thats what I thought. Senator Carl Levin then spoke from the Senate floor and declared that Obama was not against Section 102, but it was his administration that demanded the power of indefinite detention. In fact, Levin says the administration was clear and demanded that the language regarding U.S. citizens be removed from the section prior to its being signed into law. Journalists then came forward and sued the Obama administration over the indefinite detention provision claiming that the could not do this under the Constitution. The judge asked if the Obama administration was, in fact, using that power currently but the attorneys and the administration refused to answer. Thats right the Obama administration would not come out and say that they were or were not using the power of indefinite detention now, which we all know indicates that they are using it. 9

Where are we in our society when freedom of the press results in the press being too scared or even knowingly complicit in what is taking place in the undermining of the Constitution? Judge Katherine Forrest struck down Section 1021 as unconstitutional. This would seem to be exactly what Obama claimed that he wanted, right? He said he would have vetoed the bill with that power in it, and then signed it into law. In fact, he knew at some point a judge would rule it unconstitutional. When he signed it, he said he would never use it, so this shouldnt be a problem. Well, it was. Within twenty-four hours, Obama attorneys were petitioning New York federal judge Raymond Lohier to overturn Forrests ruling, which he did. So Swann points out that the medias problem on this is not that Obama signed such a bill into law, but its that he says one thing, but demonstrates he will do quite the opposite. However, he is not alone in his support of the NDAA, including indefinite detention.

Ben Swann and the Media's NDAA Problem

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1Kf_0mEoYU&feature=player_embedded

Ben Swann talks about the problem of the media not holding President Obama accountable for his words and actions on the NDAA.

Does Section 1029 Of The NDAA Guarantee Americans Their Constitutional Rights To Trial?
December 31st 2012 By Tim Brown

Well, its been one year to the day when Barack Hussein Obama signed into law the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and its assumed he will sign the new 2013 version of the NDAA sometime today, keeping the signing under the radar as he did last year. The questions surrounding this years NDAA has been over whether or not proposed amendments 10

to it would, in fact, provide protections for Americans under the Constitution, guaranteeing them their Sixth Amendment rights. While I told you about the Feinstein Amendment here and here, but the reality is that the Feinstein amendment was dropped from the 2012 NDAA. But wasnt there another provision in the NDAA that guarantees an Americans right to trial is upheld? Well, there is Section 1029, which is referred to as the Gohmert Amendment. The amendment was written by Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX). The amendment has claimed to protect the rights of U.S. citizens if they are arrested and suspected of terrorism. Here is the text of Section 1029 of the 2013 NDAA: Nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or to deny any Constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution for any person who is lawfully in the United States when detained pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force and who is otherwise entitled to the availability of such writ or such rights. It sounds like it is guaranteeing to protect American citizens rights, doesnt it? I mean its pretty straight forward. But is it? According to Dan Johnson, with PANDA (People Against the NDAA) the problem is in the language, particularly the guarantee to a trial in an Article III court. He writes: The Gohmert Amendment only says that if you get a trial in an Article III court that you wont be denied your constitutional rights in that court, but theres no guarantee that you get any trial, let alone one in an Article III court. This language is deceptive in that it implies Congress can pick and choose who gets Constitutional Rights. It also does not recognize or protect the Constitutional Rights of U.S. citizens travelling abroad. In other words, Section 1029 does nothing to protect your right to a trial in an Article III court. In fact, lawmakers have declared that America is a battlefield. This means that anyone detained under the 2001 (You read that right, thats George W. Bush) Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which was strengthened further by the 2012 NDAA, would be subject to a military trial, not a trial in an Article III court. Johnson goes on affirm this stating that Anyone detained under the 2001 AUMF as modified by the 2012 NDAA is subject to the laws of war. My friends you need to understand that this applies based simply on the suspicion of being a terrorist or being involved with terrorists by either the President or anyone under his command! This means they would not get the Article III court, but rather would be subject to an Article I court, or we commonly refer to them as a Military Tribunal or a Courts-Martial. Dan Johnson goes further to explain that The 2009 Military Commissions Act gave military commissions/tribunals (also know as courts-martial) the statutory authority to choose whether or not they had jurisdiction. In laymens terms, that means a Military commission (an Article I Court) can decide themselves whether or not they will take jurisdiction over cases involving AUMF/NDAA covered persons.

11

So while the language of the Gohmert amendment sounds good, it does absolutely nothing to guarantee you a trial in an Article III court. You can still be indefinitely detained based on the White House saying you are a terrorist. Additionally, if you do get a trial, it may be in a military tribunal and not a civilian court of law. However, should you actually get into an Article III court, then your rights would be honored.unless otherwise entitled. All this comes down to those final two words, otherwise entitled. The statement is basically saying that you are not otherwise entitled even though the Constitution says you are. Under both Bush and Obama, if they deemed you a terrorist, you had no right to a trial, because in their words, you are an enemy combatant. If you dont believe that our representatives think the same thing, listen to Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) as he was interviewed and asked about his statement Shut up! You dont get a lawyer! Hear him state these exact words. Dont forget while you are celebrating tonight that Obama just may be doing some celebrating of his own by signing this unconstitutional, tyrannical bill into law, further endangering you and me and our children.

12

National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Of 2013 Still A Threat To Liberty

December 31st 2012

This measure has a chilling impact on First Amendment Rights, states Federal District Judge Katherine Forrest according to a flyer being distributed by the New Citizens Initiative to repeal the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). People Against the NDAA (PandaUNITE.org) is gearing up for a nationwide fight in 2013 to nullify this very controversial act that uses national security as window dressing to take away six freedoms guaranteed to all citizens in our Constitutions Bill of Rights! PANDA warns that the following six Bill of Rights amendments are being violated: First Amendment: Free Speech; Second Amendment: Right to Bear Arms: Fourth Amendment: Unlawful Search and Seizure; Fifth Amendment: Due Process; Sixth Amendment: Speedy and Public Trial; and Eighth Amendment: Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Dangers of the NDAA signed into federal law on December 31, 2011 include: 1. Arrest and indefinite detainment powers given to the President based on his mere allegation that you are a threat or terrorist; 2. Right to legal representationeven so much as a to call your attorney or a family member is denied; 3. American citizens and legal permanent residents can be held for life without being convicted of a crime; 4. The right to trial by jury of your peers is taken away; 5. You can literally be executed without being convicted of a crime. At a recent informational meeting held in Florida, speakers detailed lost freedoms which include no longer being permitted to speak out against the federal government; the discussion of anything which may be deemed an extreme view; and speaking in favor of what some NDAA advocates call our national symbols and unacceptable attire or language at protest gatherings. Remember the seven Hutaree militia members in Michigan who were arrested and charged? Even though they eventually were acquitted, the trial sent a chill through Left and Right wing circles across America. Aims of the citizens initiative are threefold: 1. Nonviolent nullification or repeal of the indefinite detention sections of the NDAA; 2. An end to laws that trade our liberty for national security; and 3. Engaging a younger generation in American politics so this can never happen again. 13

Nothing that happens in Washington will be fixed there, so its time to stop fixating on them. The commenter who made this observation believes local resistance must rise up and indeed, Utah is led the charge by introducing legislation on December 19, 2012 to deal with the NDAA. Another person comments: Wake up America; were losing our rights and theyre doing it behind Americans backfreedoms are being slowly taken awayand theyre doing it with deception and disrespect to all that served. Its a disgrace! The annual National Defense Authorization Acts signed by Obama is indeed a disgrace and the upcoming amended 2013 version promises to be no better. The amended version which would have limited Obamas powers of unconstitutional incarceration was defeated in the House. It appears that the continued liberty of the American people will depend upon the courage of individual state legislators and governors.

14