The End is Near 2012 National Defense Authorization Act

I am almost without words. Anyone who is against this new 2012 National Defense Authorization Act is being called a “traitor” as is the case with Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. The provisions of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, approved by the Senate last week, will allow the military to arrest terrorist suspects in the United States and detain them indefinitely without trial. But the definition of terrorist is anyone who disagrees with government. It might be safer in prison than out here right now.

This is strangely timed with the economic meltdown and if there are widespread bank failures, there will now be troops and tanks out on American streets. No standing army could ever conquer the United States. Yet with 19 guys and a camel, we have lost everything. The sheer intensity of this debate from both sides centers on how this new law will affect US citizens. This is just nuts. Britain endured IRA terrorist attacks. I cannot recall how many times I had to evacuate a building in London because of some threat. But the British did not surrender all their rights as Americans have done. Tea Party – you blew this one!

This raises fundamental questions about our freedoms that are at the core of liberty. The right to Due Process comes from the Bible. Due Process of Law is what God afforded Cain – the right to be heard, which is precisely being denied by this new Act. You cannot imprison anyone indefinitely and then deny them the right to be heard. Not even God did that when he knew what happened.

Now Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field” While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.

The LORD said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground. Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth.”

This 2012 National Defense Authorization Act has so fundamentally rejected everything set by God and the Founding Fathers, there are no words to describe what is taking place. This has come at the PRECISE time we face civil unrest because of a collapse in the financial system. Instead of rolling up the sleeves and fixing this mess, we are setting the stage for Marshall Law. A friend of mine in Washington wrote:

“Frankly, I am scared as well. The provision was actually made MORE Kafkaesque by the White House...Sen. Carl Levin said as much on the Senate floor. Only 7 Senators voted for an amendment to take it out. The average citizen does not care one tiny little bit. I could tell you an exact quote I heard on Friday talking directly to a very very high former executive branch official -who would know - who said, in effect, this is how the man on the horse will come in.

The surveillance state is in place (I'm assuming this email is being vacuumed up by some algorithm) and now the enforcement mechanisms seem to be put into place.

America was once the land of the free, but ever since 911, the Dick Cheny’s of the land have done everything in their power to transform it into the land of fear? The gradual erosion of our fundamental human and civil rights has reached its pinnacle, and the consequences should worry not merely American’s, but the rest of the world. For the United States is armed with weapons of mass destruction and it seems the crazies are seizing control.

The United States Senate has just passed a resolution that as currently drafted, gives authority to the US military to indefinitely detain persons, even American citizens arrested on American soil or overseas without any notice, charge or public trial. In other words, the federal government has the ability to openly detain American citizens, here or overseas, for their entire lives without any right to be heard in a public hearing or with any charge whatsoever. American citizens no longer have any rights under this Act and they can say someone said you did this or said that, and they do not have to tell you who they claimed told them that. All that is now needed is to declare you a terrorist that is broadly defined to say you disagree. No proof is needed and Due Process gone forever; USA = Syria!

Discreetly hidden in the 682 pages of this Act (NDAA), you will discover under the title 'Detainee Matters' in §1031 and §1032, Congress has effectively given the Department of Defense the express power to take civilians into military custody and to indefinitely detain people they suspect of terrorism activities with absolutely no charges or trial whatsoever. People in the Arab world have risen up and toppled governments to rid themselves of this very sort of power Congress is handing to the military. This makes a mockery of all those who fought and died in Iraq and Afghanistan under the pretense we are restoring their freedom. Who will invade the USA to liberate us?

I was held the same way. ONLY because the Supreme Court ordered the government to respond, a key step to gaining certiorari, I was then released because they had no statutory authority and feared a major decision against them would prevent a bill like this from being enacted. Codifying indefinite military detention into law is one of the most outrageous developments since the passage of the PATRIOT Act in 2001. There can be no liberty and just for all – it is officially propaganda.

People do not understand how law is made. You have been stripped of all your rights and Due Process

of Law all because of this cry against child molesters. The Supreme Court ruled in US v Comstock that

federal officials can indefinitely hold inmates considered ‘’sexually dangerous” after their prison terms

are complete. The ruling was 7-2 reversing a lower court decision that said Congress overstepped its

authority in allowing indefinite detentions of considered ‘’sexually dangerous.” The two dissenting votes

you might think were no doubt liberals. Well – you are wrong. They were the ONLY two “real”

conservatives Scalia and Thomas who view the Constitution as strictly enforced. They wrote:

The Constitution plainly sets forth the “few and defined” powers that Congress may exercise. Article I “vest[s]” in Congress “[a]ll legislative Powers herein granted,” §1, and carefully enumerates those powers in §8. The final clause of §8, the Necessary and Proper Clause, authorizes Congress “[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” Art. I, §8, cl. 18. As the Clause’s placement at the end of §8 indicates, the “foregoing Powers” are those granted to Congress in the preceding clauses of that section. The “other Powers” to which the Clause refers are those “vested” in Congress and the other branches by other specific provisions of the Constitution.

No enumerated power in Article I, §8, expressly dele-gates to Congress the power to enact a civil-commitment regime for sexually dangerous persons, nor does any other provision in the Constitution vest Congress or the other branches of the Federal Government with such a power. Accordingly, §4248 can be a valid exercise of congressional authority only if it is “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” one or more of those federal powers actually enumerated in the Constitution.

Section 4248 does not fall within any of those powers. The Government identifies no specific enumerated power or powers as a constitutional predicate for §4248, and none are readily discernible. Indeed, not even the Commerce Clause—the enumerated power this Court has interpreted most expansively, see, e.g., NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel

Corp., 301 U. S. 1, 37 (1937)—can justify federal civil detention of sex offenders. Under the Court’s precedents, Congress may not regulate noneconomic activity (such as sexual violence) based solely on the effect such activity may have, in individual cases or in the aggregate, on interstate commerce. Morrison, 529 U. S., at 617–618; United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 563–567 (1995).That limitation forecloses any claim that §4248 carries into execution Congress’ Commerce Clause power, and the Government has never argued otherwise, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 21 –22.

The government loves cases like this because how can judges uphold rights of people that molest children? People who fail to understand how law is made will cheer such a decision, but they end up digging their own grave. Once you rule it is legal to hold a child molester indefinitely; then anyone can be treated the same way claiming there is some need by changing the label. Now it is terrorism. States are bringing back debtors prison where people died indefinitely because they could not pay a bank. If you wanted to imprison a child molester longer, then increase the statute. You do not hold anyone indefinitely! Indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is abhorrence in any country which observes the rule of law. In 2001, it was held to be unconstitutional when the government refused to release Cubans from prison when their home country refused to accept them. It was then held to violate Due Process of Law. They wrote:

A statute permitting indefinite detention of an alien would raise a serious constitutional problem. The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause forbids the Government to “depriv[e]” any “person … of … liberty . . . without due process of law.” Freedom from imprisonment–from government custody, detention, or other forms of physical restraint–lies at the heart of the liberty that Clause protects. See Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 80 (1992). And this Court has said that government detention violates that Clause unless the detention is ordered in a criminal proceeding with adequate procedural protections, see United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 746 (1987), or, in certain special and “narrow” non-punitive “circumstances,” Foucha, supra, at 80, where a special justification, such as harm-threatening mental illness, outweighs the “individual’s constitutionally protected interest in avoiding physical restraint.” Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 356 (1997). The proceedings at issue here are civil, not criminal, and we assume that they are nonpunitive in purpose and effect. There is no sufficiently strong special justification here for indefinite civil detention–at least as administered under this statute. The statute, says the Government, has two regulatory goals: “ensuring the appearance of aliens at future immigration proceedings” and “[p]reventing danger to the community.” Brief for Respondents in No. 99—7791, p. 24. But by definition the first justification–preventing flight–is weak or nonexistent where removal seems a remote possibility at best. As this Court said in Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972), where detention’s goal is no longer practically attainable, detention no longer “bear[s] [a] reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual [was] committed.” Id., at 738.

The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act is so devastating we have simply lost everything. People cheer this kind of nonsense without understanding how government operates. The number of teenagers being charged under child pornography laws because a 17 year old girl sends a nude picture of herself to an 18 year old boy falls in the same crime category as a 40 year-old exploiting an 8 year old. Laws are far too often blind and prosecutors enforce technically, not morally. Under this Act all control would be taken out of the hands of civilian-controlled judicial system, and placed into the secretive and unaccountable military courts where the Constitution does not apply. Those Senators who signed onto this legislation should be voted out of office and barred from ever running again. The NDAA would eliminate even the Biblical right to be heard. It is the most violating piece of legislation that even is contrary to the Bible and those who voted for this surely cannot be seen as real Americas and must be total atheists who would allow indefinite detention of American citizens, with no charges or trial without Congressional authorization. Ben Franklin so eloquently warned, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.”

The proponents claim the changes affirm tools the government already has. The revoke them! This is not Syria! Critics say the provisions are far too broad, allowing the president to define who is an enemy combatant. I guess nobody gives two shits about their families decades from now. This will allow the government to imprison without trial for life anyone who it claims has "committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces." Occupy Wall Street was an enemy force. In a financial meltdown, they can claim it is a terrorist attack on the economy, shut down the internet to prevent communication, and call a bank holiday for 6 months like FDR. We should NEVER again allow tanks to patrol American streets targeting citizens nor deny people the right to be heard and a trial. Imprisoning people indefinitely without charge or trial is not something we should have to state is wrong nearly 800 years after the Magna Carta was signed. Who is protecting us from this enemy within? In the ‘30s they wanted to abandon the Constitution as well. In the Greatest Bull Market in History, I reported what they said in 1932: “On the very floor of the Congress echoed words claiming that even a dictatorship was better than the pains of depression.” Id/p 394. The end of liberty has arrived. All great societies die by suicide.

Ayotte (R-NH) Kohl (D-WI) Barrasso (R-WY) Kyl (R-AZ) Blunt (R-MO) Landrieu (D-LA) Boozman (R-AR) Lee (R-UT) Brown (R-MA) Levin (D-MI) Burr (R-NC) Lieberman (ID-CT) Casey (D-PA) Lugar (R-IN) Chambliss (R-GA) Manchin (D-WV) Coats (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ)

Current status with some clarification on the bill's language...

http://www.infowars.com/indefinite-detention-bill-heads-to-obamas-desk/

Anyone who is against this new 2012 National Defense Authorization Act is being called a “traitor”

And if this be treason, make the most of it.

The big government Republicans on this board will mostly support this bill. Gotta get those terrorists don’t you know? Ugh.

This is strangely timed with the economic meltdown and if there are widespread bank failures

Just like the tightening of bankruptcy law was strangely timed with the housing collapse.

“Anyone who is against this new 2012 National Defense Authorization Act is being called a “traitor” as is the case with Senator Marco Rubio of Florida.”

I wonder what people who were against the Patriot Act were called. Oh, REAL scary thought, combine the PA with THIS attack on our constitution.....nightmares forever.

Not Marshall Law. MARTIAL LAW.

When a writer cannot spell it correctly, it loses its impact in their written piece.

8 posted on 12/15/2011 7:35:36 PM PST by Pan_Yans Wife ("Real solidarity means coming together for the common good."-Sarah Palin)

Not Marshall Law. MARTIAL LAW.

When a writer cannot spell it correctly, it loses its impact in their written piece.

9 posted on 12/15/2011 7:36:09 PM PST by Pan_Yans Wife ("Real solidarity means coming together for the common good."-Sarah Palin)

This is fundamentally un-American more than the Eminent Domain nonsense in Connecticut.

But back then Sean Hannity pounded the drum on ED as much as could be expected, but with this I hear/see almost nothing from anyone, much less an outrage.

Any plans of repeal or declaring it unconstitutional?

10 posted on 12/15/2011 7:39:52 PM PST by MichaelCorleone (Stop feeding the beast; if they don't say "Merry Christmas", don't buy.)

12 posted on 12/15/2011 7:45:04 PM PST by scott7278 ("...I have not changed Congress and how it operates the way I would have liked..." - BHO)

“Hannity is joke.”

No argument there. I was just trying to contrast what was said then as opposed to now (as far as I know). At least with the stripping of property rights - arguably one of the cornerstones of our liberty - at least someone seemed to understand the implications of the Supreme Court decision.

Bad as that was we are now officially a police state, imo, and I see/hear little to no outrage from ‘conservative’ talk radio and FOX. That does not make me sleep better at night.

13 posted on 12/15/2011 7:58:39 PM PST by MichaelCorleone (Stop feeding the beast; if they don't say "Merry Christmas", don't buy.)

This is one of the reason or forefathers fought a war with the King of England.
What is amazing MSM has had little if nothing reporting on this issue.
We are giving up are Constitution Rights. We are becoming a “police state”. Who will decide what group/citizen are/is a terrorist ten years down the road? Were are the petitions against this Unconstitutional “Law”.

14 posted on 12/15/2011 8:17:35 PM PST by steveab (When was the last time someone tried to sell you a CO2 induced climate control system for your home?)

Yeah, spell check and sentence construction is not one of Armstrong’s strong points but everyone somehow knows what he is talking about.

Maybe you should wait for the New York Times to report on it and read it there or would it be clear what they are talking about?

Don’t worry, in one of the many news articles I read about this bill, the O’bummer administration promised never to use and declare a US citizen a ‘combatant’ where he (the citizen) would forfeit all his/her/its rights.

Happy “Bill of Rights Day” it’s today.

A pity that Infowars is the only place really trumpeting this. It needs to be heard, but Alex Jones lacks the credibility to do anything about it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.