10 votes

ALERT: Nationwide Protest vs. NDAA on Feb.3, 2012 at Your Sen/Rep's Offices!

Join Amanda (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AH3r8q3t70), a Oregon R3VOLutionary, and others across the Country, in letting our public servants/employees know that We, their Bosses, are NOT happy with their office performance!

Let your employees know that We the People WILL NOT allow TRAITORS in Govt sit idly by and hide behind titles or wrap themselves conveniently in the Flag, or the Constitution!

http://www.facebook.com/events/335643799778967/

Nationwide NDAA 2012 Congressional Protest
Public Event · By Suzanne Noel

When
Friday, February 3, 2012
Time
12:00pm until 7:00pm
Where

Congressional Offices Throughout the Country
Description

Americans across the country will gather outside congressional offices Feb. 3rd from noon to 7 p.m. to protest NDAA 2012 (H.R. 1540). You will find your protest location by looking to see how your congressmen voted. Look below - under house and senate. There is also a link so you can find the address to your congressman's local office where your protest will take place.

This is a new page to help organize protests across the country: http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.280660888662374.657...

House
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2011-932

Senate
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2011-230

Office Locations for Congressmen
http://www.house.gov/representatives/

Liberty oriented organizations and Meetups please schedule the event. Individuals should use blogs, forums, twitter, face book and youtube to let others know about the protest. Participants should notify the local and national media of their protests.

The objective of our demonstration is to have our congressmen repeal Section 1021 and 1022 which could lead to the indefinite military detention of Americans without due process. Make sure to contact your congressmen also. The protest is not affiliated with any particular political or grassroots organizations. We are uniting as individuals who want to stop this tyranny before it gets worse. Martin Luther King didn't need violence to affect change, neither do we.

NDAA 2012 allows for Americans to be indefinitely detained by the military without access to an attorney or a trial by jury on orders of the executive branch. Amendments to exclude American citizens were rejected by the Obama administration and senate vote (See below).

Congress and President Obama have declared war on Americans. The last time America was declared a military zone President Roosevelt authorized the internment of Americans with Executive Order 9066, issued February 19, 1942.

NDAA 2012 is unconstitutional. Sections 1021 and 1022 repeal the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th amendments to the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and declares our right to due process. No law can supersede it. We have a right to our day in court with a jury of our peers.

U.S. Constitution Article III Section 2

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed.

From Oath Keepers:

We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the denial of the right to jury trial, the use of admiralty courts (military tribunals) instead, and the application of the laws of war to the colonists. After that experience, and being well aware of the infamous Star Chamber in English history, the Founders ensured that the international laws of war would apply only to foreign enemies, not to the American people. Thus, the Article III Treason Clause establishes the only constitutional form of trial for an American, not serving in the military, who is accused of making war on his own nation. Such a trial for treason must be before a civilian jury, not a tribunal.

The international laws of war do not trump our Bill of Rights. We reject as illegitimate any such claimed power, as did the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan (1865). Any attempt to apply the laws of war to American civilians, under any pretext, such as against domestic “militia” groups the government brands “domestic terrorists,” is an act of war and an act of treason.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/03/03/declaration-of-orders...

Our Declaration of Independence also discusses our right to trial by jury.

Senator Graham said that America is part of the battlefield, and as such, Americans can be captured, interrogated, and killed with no due process. Senators Graham, Kyl, and McCain say the law of war (military law) applies to us.

The senators claim the 2001 AUMF is in accordance with 1971 Non-Detention Act and allows Americans to be detained indefinitely without acces to an attorney. They argue that the Supreme Court has held that the President has the constitutional authority to detain enemy combatants, including U.S. citizens.

Non - Detention Act 1971:

No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress

The senators say the act of congress that allows you be detained indefinitely is the AUMF 2001. So, no, the paragraph below from NDAA 2012 Section 1021 does not protect you. We are talking about the law of war applied to American citizens not criminal law which includes due process.

(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.

==========================================================

UPDATE 1:

They've ALREADY begun! First Fed.Gvt case to invoke NDAA:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/104640.html

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/01/al-madhwani-cert-oppositi...

Al Madhwani Cert Opposition Filed

by Benjamin Wittes

The government has filed its opposition to cert in the case of Al Madhwani v. Obama–a Guantanamo habeas case. Al Madhwani’s cert petition seeks review of this DC Circuit opinion affirming his detention. That opinion, in turn, affirmed District Judge Thomas Hogan’s earlier opinion. The government’s argument is interesting because it explicitly invokes the new language in the NDAA:

In response to the attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress enacted the AUMF, which authorizes “the President * * * to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” AUMF § 2(a), 115 Stat. 224. The President has ordered the Armed Forces to subdue both the al-Qaida terrorist network and the Taliban regime that harbored it in Afghanistan. Armed conflict with al-Qaida and the Taliban remains ongoing, and in connection with that conflict, some persons captured by the United States and its coalition partners have been detained at Guantanamo Bay. In Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA), Pub. L. No. 112-81, 125 Stat. 1561 (2011), Congress “affirm[ed]” that the authority granted by the AUMF includes the authority to detain, “under the law of war,” 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.”

. . .

As relevant here, the court of appeals has repeatedly held that an individual may be detained under the AUMF if he was part of al-Qaida at the time of his capture. See, e.g., Al-Adahi v. Obama, 613 F.3d 1102, 1103 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (“The government may * * * hold at Guantanamo and elsewhere those individuals who are ‘part of’ al-Qaida, the Taliban, or associated forces.”), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1001 (2011); accord Al Odah v. United States, 611 F.3d 8, 10 (D.C. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1812 (2011); Awad v. Obama, 608 F.3d 1, 11 (D.C. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1814 (2011); Al-Bihani v. Obama, 590 F.3d 866, 872 (D.C. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1814 (2011); accord NDAA § 1021, 125 Stat. 1561 (“affirm[ing] the authority of the President to * * * detain” 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”).



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

changed the title of the thread

well, I personally believe it's too important to let up.

If ANY of your Congressional critters voted like the traitors that they are 99% of the time, let them know, that under no uncertain terms, you as their employer will let them know exactly how you feel.

Frankly, this is grounds for citizen's arrest.

NDAA = Treason, plain and simple.

And IF you're in Oregon, please go back up Amanda. She's tough, but wouldn't want an enlightened soul like that get trashed by thugs the way they treat OWS'ers.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

The Govt hacks are truly psychotic!

In the worst case scenario in which oBUSHma is (s)elected for a 2nd term, he WILL be IMPEACHED for signing NDAA into law. It's damn near a guarantee at this point.

The Citizenry will make sure of it.

There is way too much growing anger and resentment over growth of govt. And, the citizenry are not backing down!

Besides, even in the sheer politically expedient sense, even RINOs are gonna make sure that oBomBa is a lame duck POTUS and impeached for something, if not on Constitutional violations grounds, regardless.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

OMG! It's already begun! 1st Gvt case to invoke NDAA:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/104640.html

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/01/al-madhwani-cert-oppositi...

Al Madhwani Cert Opposition Filed

by Benjamin Wittes

The government has filed its opposition to cert in the case of Al Madhwani v. Obama–a Guantanamo habeas case. Al Madhwani’s cert petition seeks review of this DC Circuit opinion affirming his detention. That opinion, in turn, affirmed District Judge Thomas Hogan’s earlier opinion. The government’s argument is interesting because it explicitly invokes the new language in the NDAA:

In response to the attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress enacted the AUMF, which authorizes “the President * * * to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.” AUMF § 2(a), 115 Stat. 224. The President has ordered the Armed Forces to subdue both the al-Qaida terrorist network and the Taliban regime that harbored it in Afghanistan. Armed conflict with al-Qaida and the Taliban remains ongoing, and in connection with that conflict, some persons captured by the United States and its coalition partners have been detained at Guantanamo Bay. In Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA), Pub. L. No. 112-81, 125 Stat. 1561 (2011), Congress “affirm[ed]” that the authority granted by the AUMF includes the authority to detain, “under the law of war,” 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.”

. . .

As relevant here, the court of appeals has repeatedly held that an individual may be detained under the AUMF if he was part of al-Qaida at the time of his capture. See, e.g., Al-Adahi v. Obama, 613 F.3d 1102, 1103 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (“The government may * * * hold at Guantanamo and elsewhere those individuals who are ‘part of’ al-Qaida, the Taliban, or associated forces.”), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1001 (2011); accord Al Odah v. United States, 611 F.3d 8, 10 (D.C. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1812 (2011); Awad v. Obama, 608 F.3d 1, 11 (D.C. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1814 (2011); Al-Bihani v. Obama, 590 F.3d 866, 872 (D.C. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1814 (2011); accord NDAA § 1021, 125 Stat. 1561 (“affirm[ing] the authority of the President to * * * detain” 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”).

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

PS: Oh and IF you do decide to comment on Amanda's YouTube

comment section, please be courteous.

Yes, we can all see that she's stunningly gorgeous, but really, still can't believe some people are as crass as to comment in a way that's fit for a talk on 42nd Street, NYC, circa 1973.

Reach out to her, if any of you guys are in Oregon!

She's articulate, aware of the issues, inspired, and driven.

Give her a shoutout y'all!

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

If you're a FB member, please visit the link provided to see

more links provided that may help you locate who your reps/senators are and who voted which way, and more in depth on the issue at hand.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

just

updating...

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul