19 votes

Action Alert: The U.S. Constitution hangs by its Final Thread - Must Read

URGENT: SB 1867 is now HR 1540 - Vote expected on Tuesday.

Lets Melt the Congressional Switchboard with Phone Calls on Monday & Tuesday - We can win this !

SB 1867 did pass with language in Section 1031: that America Citizens be subjected to the rules of war; That anyone could be detained indefinitely without trial for committing an act of belligerence Sec 1032 prevents military custody of Citizens, but does not exclude American Citizens from being rounded up, and held in private custody under the rules of war.

Don't waste time emailing Representatives or signing petitions. This is Urgent, Your Rep need to hear directly from YOU NOW!

This Bill is also known as the "National Defense Authorization Act" - NDAA
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi...

Find your representative:
http://www.house.gov/htbi...

Contact Your Representative - Switchboard operator:
1-(202)-224-3121

Be Polite to Staffers who take your call.

remember SB 1867 is now HR 1540

Urge Your Representative to please:

"remove Sections 1031 & 1032 from bill HR 1540 & any similar language, or reject the entire thing. This bill can be construed to be a Nazi Roundup. The DEVIL is in the DETAILS of the bill.".

Tell your representative they could be charged with WAR CRIMES if they vote for this bill the way it is worded..

If staffer says "Obama has promised to Veto this bill", don't buy it, it is just another Obama lie..

Proof Obama will not veto S1867

http://youtu.be/PLiKvSz_wX8

"They are using sophisticated disinformation tactics". Republican Congressman Justin Amash's told The Grand Rapids Press that the S. 1867 National Defense Authorization Act's military detention provisions are “carefully crafted to mislead the public.”

An Open Message to Police & Military

http://youtu.be/zV0pl9yiURY

------------------------------------------------------

TEXT OF HR 1540 PP (Public Print - PP)(current as of 12/9/2011)

Subtitle D—Detainee Matters

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED
FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED
PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR
USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority
of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force
pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force
(Public Law 107–40) includes the authority for the Armed
Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as
defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law
of war.

(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this
section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, com-
mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on
September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for
those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially
supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces
that are engaged in hostilities against the United
States or its coalition partners, including any person
who has committed a belligerent act
or has directly
supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposi-
tion of a person under the law of war as described in sub-
section (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial
until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Au-
thorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United
States Code (as amended by the Military Commis-
sions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–
84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or
competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the per-
son’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or
any other foreign entity.

(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is in-
tended to limit or expand the authority of the President
or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(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.

(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—
The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress re-
garding the application of the authority described in this
section, including the organizations, entities, and individ-
uals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of sub-
section (b)(2).

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF
WAR.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para-
graph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States
shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who
is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public
Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition
under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in
paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose deten-
tion is authorized under section 1031 who is deter-
mined—

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda
or an associated force that acts in coordination
with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda;
and
(B) to have participated in the course of
planning or carrying out an attack or attempted
attack against the United States or its coalition
partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—For pur-
poses of this subsection, the disposition of a person
under the law of war has the meaning given in sec-
tion 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise de-
scribed in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made
unless consistent with the requirements of section
1033.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The Sec-
retary of Defense may, in consultation with the Sec-
retary of State and the Director of National Intel-
ligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the
Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writ-
ing that such a waiver is in the national security in-
terests of the United States.

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND
LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement
to detain a person in military custody under this sec-
tion does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require-
ment to detain a person in military custody under
this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien
of the United States on the basis of conduct taking
place within the United States, except to the extent
permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

(c) IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the President
shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for
implementing this section.
(2) ELEMENTS.—The procedures for imple-
menting this section shall include, but not be limited
to, procedures as follows:

(A) Procedures designating the persons au-
thorized to make determinations under sub-
section (a)(2) and the process by which such de-
terminations are to be made.
(B) Procedures providing that the require-
ment for military custody under subsection
(a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongo-
ing surveillance or intelligence gathering with
regard to persons not already in the custody or
control of the United States.
(C) Procedures providing that a determina-
tion under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be
implemented until after the conclusion of an in-
terrogation session which is ongoing at the time
the determination is made and does not require
the interruption of any such ongoing session.
(D) Procedures providing that the require-
ment for military custody under subsection
(a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law en-
forcement, or other government officials of the
United States are granted access to an indi-
vidual who remains in the custody of a third
country.
(E) Procedures providing that a certifi-
cation of national security interests under sub-
section (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of
transferring a covered person from a third coun-
try if such a transfer is in the interest of the
United States and could not otherwise be accom-
plished.

(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect
on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons de-
scribed in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody
or brought under the control of the United States on or after
that effective date.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

This should result in more faxes, e-mails and calls

to representatives than the TARP fiasco.... and hopefully will have the opposite result!

Here is my email

I'm not good at these things but I couldn't find a template to go off of. Also, will be calling shortly.

Hello,

I urge you to vote NO on HR 1540 - NDAA while there is ANY language in the bill that even HINTS at indefinite detainment of American citizens and the suspension of Habes Corpus and the 4th amendment. Remove Sections 1021 and 1022 (formally sections 1031 and 1032) from bill HR 1540 and any similar language, or reject the bill in its entirety. This bill can be construed to be a Nazi Roundup. The DEVIL is in the DETAILS of the bill. Ask yourself, would you want Bush/Cheney to have this power?

Furthermore, Obama will NOT veto this bill, as Senator Levin said on the Senate floor, this is what Obama has requested. This is also a direct violation of the Posse Comitatus Act (google it if you don't know it). No branch of government should have this power no matter how well-intentioned. A simple 'don't worry' or 'we wouldn't do that' is not sufficient. Those are the famous words of EVERY dictator that has ever overthrown a republic or a democracy.

I would like a response to this email and also confirmation that you will not be voting away the civil liberties of the PEOPLE who voted you into office.

NDAA Conference Report Vote TODAY!!!

I'm encouraging everyone to contact their respective representatives and urge them to vote NO on the NDAA Conference Report.

The vote on the Conference Report is scheduled for TODAY!!!

More from Congressman Justin Amash

http://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash

For those of you who don't believe that your calls and e-mails to Members of Congress work, let me assure you that they do. Members "freak out" when they receive more than half a dozen calls on any issue.

Thanks to our efforts, several Members of Congress are reconsidering their support for the NDAA provisions that permit the indefinite detention of Americans without charge or trial. They have approached me on the House floor to let me know. Please keep up your efforts: http://house.gov/representatives/

____

"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon

Update from Congressman Justin Amash

http://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash

UPDATE: The detention provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) conference report (final version) are identical to the provisions in the Senate version. They jeopardize the constitutional rights of all Americans.

Sections 1021 and 1022 (previously Sections 1031 and 1032) permit the President to indefinitely detain American citizens, without charge or trial, at his discretion. The NDAA is one of the most anti-liberty pieces of legislation of our lifetime. Please contact Members of Congress to urge them to vote NO: http://house.gov/representatives/.

REMINDER: Members of Congress who want to grant the President power to indefinitely detain American citizens, without charge or trial, likely will make two false claims about the NDAA.

(1) They will say that you have nothing to worry about because Sec. 1021 asserts that it does not "affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens."

RESPONSE: Pres. Obama and many Members of Congress believe the President ALREADY has the authority the bill grants him. Legally, of course, he does not. This language was inserted to keep proponents and opponents of the bill appeased, while permitting the President to assert that the improper power he has claimed all along is now in statute.

(2) They will say that American citizens are specifically exempted under the following language in Sec. 1022: "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

RESPONSE: Don't be fooled. All this says is that the President is not REQUIRED to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trial. It still PERMITS him to do so.

Text of Conference Report — H.R. 1540 — National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
http://www.rules.house.gov/Media/file/PDF_112_1/legislativet...

____

"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon

I called and emailed my three

Boxer, Feinstein and Matsui. I believe Doris Matsui will vote No. Japanese folks know about internment.

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

Proof Obama will Sign NDAA 1031 Citizen Imprisonment Law

Proof Obama will Sign NDAA 1031 Citizen Imprisonment Law

- Any time you hear the words, "requirement for military custody" this refers to 1032 NOT 1031. We MUST not confuse these two sections. In its statements, the Obama administration has actually contributed to the confusion about 1032's "requirement for military custody", which is COMPLETEY UNRELATED to Section 1031 citizen imprisonment without trial. These tricky, misleading words appear even in major news stories. Don't fall for it!
http://whatreallyhappened.com/content/proof-obama-will-sign-...

Found this article wanted to share.

Already called my three

Already called my three whores.

If they pass this, time for states to secede.

Or tell the feds to stuff that law up their butts as it is not constitutional.

You know,

that is the best thing that could happen. I am absolutely convinced of it.

All it would take is one state to secede and succeed, others would surely follow suit.

I believe it's the only way out of this entire centralized power structure.

Otherwise, we're just putting on band-aids.

"For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise." - Benjamin Franklin

My thoughts exactly

Gather concerned citizens. Draft a declaration to nullify congress for creating a war of aggression against U.S. citizens. Do this on a county by county basis.

____

"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon

Careful

@visible51

The legal premise is ambiguous, Obama breaks it AND the Oath of Office on a regular basis.

The thing is, I'm perfectly okay with Ron Paul circumventing certain aspects of the constitution (temporarily) to get things done, if he had to. Because, I actually trust him. Doubtful he'd go there but possible.

Obviously, as CIC, he can order all troops home immediately.

That was easy.

Even if he accomplishes 30% of what he/we want, we're okay.....the legacy will prevail.

I always say this....Ron Paul was ahead of his time, but right now, he is 'Just in Time!'

One day, I'm gonna' change my name to Dale Lee Paul

Update: 11 Congressmen Vow to Fight NDAA (S1867)

U.S. Rep. Justin Amash announced today he has 10 fellow congressmen on his side as he carries his fight against the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to the floor of the U.S. House.

http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/12/us_rep_justi...

____

"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon

Just say "NO"

to the evil imperialistic warmonger police state.

THIS IS THE WORST PART IMO

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF
WAR.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para-
graph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States
shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who
is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public
Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition
under the law of war.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The Sec-
retary of Defense may, in consultation with the Sec-
retary of State and the Director of National Intel-
ligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the
Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writ-
ing that such a waiver is in the national security in-
terests of the United States.

This concerns me greatly, but two points:

Detention Authorities

(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 means that the Supreme Court Decision in Hamdi is still applicable, and (as far as I can gather) that Habeas petitions are still possible.

Second, on necessitating military custody:
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement
to detain a person in military custody under this sec-
tion does not extend to citizens of the United States.

This further stipulates that military custody is not mandatory.

Would love a lawyer's take on this!

I saw the same thing and had the same questions

IF these clauses modify the rest of the Bill, then it changes the meanings somewhat.

If you read the second clause carefully, it states that MILITARY detention is not MANDATORY, but implies that it is a continuing option because it does NOT PROHIBIT military detention. Seems like slimy words that any good prosecutor could exploit.

In the first clause, it seems to me that what 'the law' is will change with each new interpretation of the Patriot Act. So if Congress writes this 'sense of Congress' that American citizens can be detained, by the military, because they give 'support' to certain groups (again, slimy words), then how long will it be until someone speaking out against our wars in the Middle East will be considered to have given aid to the enemy and will be subject to indefinite detention?

This Bill is a pile of contradictions. If I were a paranoid person, I'd say it is just another attempt to move the yard marker a few more inches toward the goal: a police state.

BTW: I'm not a lawyer. Would love to hear a lawyer's take.

Same Here!

I'm still confused on section 1021, subsection e) (not convinced that the thing in 1022 means anything reassuring)... I just want to make sure I'm not unjustifiably pissed off (I don't think I am, but like to try to do my homework :-P). Anyone have any more info on what exactly this section means? Does the President already have the power described in section 1021, and if so, why bother including it in this bill - what does that change? I'm totally in agreement that this is an outrage and I called my representative this morning (Anna Eshoo) but would like any other info folks have since I haven't heard anything back from her. Thanks in advance!!

EDIT: 1031 -> 1021

Do people realize...

there might not be any election if this bill passes ?

____

"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon

Looks allot like martial law doesn't it?

?

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Thats the way it looks to me.

*

____

"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon

Can't be interrupted?

Sounds pretty scary to me.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

This Can Be Stopped!

People need to get involved & get a handle on themselves.

I think the media is singing RP's tune to distract us from this issue right now.

____

"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon