Skip to comments.Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention
Posted on 12/28/2011 9:09:54 AM PST by Razzz42
On Christmas Day the US Senate voted 86 - 14 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 which allows for the indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial. Now, Montanans have announced the launch of recall campaigns against Senators Max Baucus and Jonathan Tester, who voted for the bill, reports Salem-News.com.
Montana is one of nine states with provisions that say that the right of recall extends to recalling members of its federal congressional delegation, pursuant to Montana Code 2-16-603, on the grounds of physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of certain felony offenses, according to SNC.
Montana law requires grounds for recall to be stated which show conformity to the allowed grounds for recall. The draft language of the Montana petitions, "reason for recall" reads:
The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees all U.S citizens:
"a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA 2011) permanently abolishes the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, "for the duration of hostilities" in the War on Terror, which was defined by President George W. Bush as "task which does not end" to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.
Those who voted Aye on December 15th, 2011, Bill of Rights Day, for NDAA 2011 have attempted to grant powers which cannot be granted, which violate both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
The Montana Recall Act stipulates that officials including US senators can only be recalled for physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of a felony offense. We the undersigned call for a recall election to be held for Senator Max S. Baucus [and Senator Jonathan Tester] and charge that he has violated his oath of office, to protect and defend the United States Constitution.
Montana residents William Crain and Stewart Rhodes are spearheading the drive, according to SNC. Mr. Crain is an artist. Mr. Rhodes is an attorney, Yale Law School graduate, and the national president of the organization Oath Keepers, who are military and law enforcement officers, both former and active duty, who vow to uphold their Oath to the US Constitution and to disobey illegal orders which constitute attacks on their fellow citizens.
These people will be the first to experience the fruits of the new law.
Montanans fighting the good fight. I don’t care what the situation is - there is NO excuse for this atrocity of a bill, and anyone who cares more about rights than about security should be standing up and fighting.
I doubt recall of federal senators is constitutional. These elections are governed by Article 1, section 3 and the XVII Amendment.
Both say those elected will serve six years. There is no provision for a recall.
A state law cannot override the Constitution.
I hope this idea catches on in all 50 states. The law is unconstitutional and those voting for it know that.
I’d love to see a similar effort in OH. There is NO excuse for that which has been thrust upon us in this law. At least, no rational, moral one.
Best of luck with this, this needs to spread nationwide, it is just one more sledge hammer against our freedom.
Horray for Montana!! At least some Americans have good sense.
So, I guess they'll just have to revert to something Constitutional, like the 2nd Ammendment.
“I doubt recall of federal senators is constitutional”
Perhaps, but the recall efforts, legal or not would illuminate for the voters just how bad these people are and make their re-election more problematic. As for Montana, Tester is up this coming year and most polling has him loosing his seat. As for Baucus, he’s just a drunk who’s been vegetating in the Senate for 32 years.
I am having trouble with the level of excitement over this part of S. 1867 as noted in this article. In my PDF version with link noted below, pages 359-371 and specifically pages 361-362 on my PDF for Sec. 1032 say that U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens are excluded. I havent been able to see what I am missing.
If the two are recalled then the Senate should vote to kick them out, right? Or will it be easier to label the entire population of voters as ‘combatants’ and build a fence around Montana?
It does NOT say ‘excluded’ at all.
It says the ‘requirement does not apply’. An entirely different concept.
The idea is that they would not be REQUIRED to incarcerate a citizen. But it leaves the door open to be able to if necessary because it does not say that they CAN’T.
That language was changed at the last minute or some other language added to include any citizen could be included as a combatant in a time of crisis and lose all rights but O’bummer promised his administration would never to use that aspect of the bill. Of course, I haven’t seen where O’bummer has signed the bill yet either.
Correct. Montana has not tried to do so. The Montana Recall Act 2-16-614. Number of electors required for recall petition, provides the number of valid signatures for a recall petition against State, District, County, Precinct, Municipal and School Officers, but not for Federal Officers. Because it doesn't apply to them.
Who is advising this group, Orly Taitz?
It is my understanding that that provision has been struck. Am I mistaken? thx
The word “requirement” bothers me also until I link it to the title of Sec 1032 that is Requirement for Military Custody. So then I see how any reference to U.S. citizens just disappears.
But then I can also see your points about how failing to include a passage that says something like no way in hell is also a problem.
Words have meaning, as does a lack of words.
Without words specifically prohibiting it, it is allowed.
Remember, this allows the military to do this. POTUS is CinC. Whether a person is a citizen, all it takes is for him to be defined or determined to be a ‘terrorist’ and it is time for jail.
Remember, early in this administration, DHS defined potential terrorists - ex-military, right wingers, Christians....
The groundwork is laid.
What I remember being dropped in the House was the Senate provision legalizing sodomy and bestiality. Article 125 of the UCMJ says those acts are simply wrong, but the Senators could not allow that definition to stand after their repeal of DADT. SB 1867 substituted in Section 551(pages 131-149 on my PDF) myriad descriptive phrases such as unlawful force, rendering unconscious, causing bodily harm, sexual contact, lack of consent, and place in fear. The problem is all the new phraseology includes the word person.
Now that issue should have had the people from PETA up in arms. The Army still has quite a few horses and the Naval Academy mascot is a goat. The first reactions by the military were hesitant references to good order and discipline. I am not sure that statement provided a lot of comfort to the animals pacing nervously in their stalls.
Looks like I need to find a later text of the bill. That has never been a fun activity for me. I think I have a site among my favorites, but interpreting its language seems to be a new experience for me each time.
Or they could obey the Constitution, which says senators serve a term of six years unless expelled by the Senate itself.
The 2nd Amendment gives the people no right to use arms against the government. Such use is by definition unconstitutional, revolutionary and illegal.
Doing so is sometimes necessary, but it cannot be legal, as its purpose is to take needed (or unneeded) measures outside the form of law. The Constitution recognizes the right of the people to keep this ultimate power in reserve, but using it by definition would involve overthrowing the Constitution.
Yeah, you’ll find language purposely obscure with no clear cut answers in black and white as the NDAA bill will rely on ‘courts’ interpretation but if NDAA doesn’t allow anyone before a court for a decision on its legality then it is like catch-22. IOW, you will sit and rot in jail before a court even knows who you are or where your are.
“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.” Taken from a previous post...
Also this bill’s language intertwines with other law like the Patriot Act starting back in the Bush rein. Like I said, purposely vague when it comes to citizen’s rights as the move continues to allow the US military to attack US citizens in the name of protecting US citizens.
If voters decide an elected official violated his oath of office then, in this case, it will be on the Senate to try and ignore the situation. So far, a Senator being drunk on the Senate floor is okay with the rest of the Senators as long he votes the agenda properly. A violation of oath is just a minor detail. Maybe a good rebuke would make it all go away.
Well, there is this unfortunate detail that a majority of the Senate voted for the bill in question.
So presumably you think a majority of the senators should vote to expel themselves. Not likely to happen.
Thanks for the comments and the link, but I still plan to belabor you with the post I developed, mainly because I was so excited to be able to work through the site. Maybe Ill have to review my prejudices. I think I did find the applicable bill and section, and it really didnt take that long. Anyway here is the site, the bill sent to the President, and the section I think relates.
The Library of Congress Thomas
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
(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 10740;
50 U.S.C. 1541 note) 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, committed, 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
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may
include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until
the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for
Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States
Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009
(title XVIII of Public Law 11184)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent
tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the persons country
of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(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.
(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
That's like say surgery is felonious assult.
Possibly. But I assume you will admit that where things go once that particular can of worms is opened is unpredictable.
The Russian and French revolutions ought to serve as examples that violent revolutions don’t always proceed as those who started them would wish.
Unless I'm confused, this means the law specifically is stating that it isn't changing anything about how Americans in the USA are to be treated. I also believe American citizens captured while fighting for our enemies overseas have never been considered to have constitutional civil rights.
In WWII at least one American citizen was captured IN the USA, tried by military commission and executed.
So what exactly has this law changed?
Go Montana, put Max in a Rehab Center and throw away the key.
You didn’t address ‘Detainee Matters in §1031 and §1032. I tell ya, it is not going to be a simple matter of drilling down through the layers because ‘definitions’ are interpretations of legal language that are left purposely vague.
Would some Montanan please explain how the Big Sky state managed to get TWO democrat US senators ????????
ok Baucas has been there forever - but Tester?
South Dakota finally managed to get rid of Tom Daschle.
C’mon Montanans ManUp!
Comprehension is not your strong point I see or you purposely gloss over what was said so you can immediately insert a talking point. That is very poor form on your part or very politically expedient.
The US recently took out (2) US citizens on foreign soil via a drone fired missile. Holder and his justice department are still trying to write an opinion on justification, maybe you can help them out.
I agree with what you say. The below statement from sec. 1021 in the House bill leads you on a nearly endless paper chase.
(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.
The sentence under the title of WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY is troublesome, because it takes a narrowly focused law (Public Law 10740) and expands it to any caprice of the President, which fits his/her definition of national security interests of the United States.
SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.
(a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.
(1) IN GENERAL.Except as provided in paragraph (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 10740) in military custody pending disposition
under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS.The requirement in paragraph (1)
shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under
section 1021 who is determined
(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 purposes of this
subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war
has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no
transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section
shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.The President may
waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits
to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is
in the national security interests of the United States.
(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.The requirement 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.
Re-read the document once again and take note of the word “Requirement to detain”...key word requirement. It’s all a word game my friend. You must read things several times to understand the underlying motive.
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.