Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Hampshire Moves Toward Nullifying NDAA
Daily Sheeple ^ | Staff

Posted on 01/01/2014 5:17:37 AM PST by IbJensen

As the National Defense Authorization Act 2014 heads to Obama’s desk as an even more draconian piece of legislation than it was previously, states have taken notice and are beginning to intensify their efforts to nullify it.

Michigan was the latest to opt for full nullification after Governor Rick Snyder (R) signed bill SB0094 into law.

New Hampshire has now taken a critical step toward nullification with the introduction of their bill HB1279, scheduled to be formally presented on January 8th, 2014.

New Hampshire’s bill has bipartisan support among its five sponsors, and is based on the model legislation of The Tenth Amendment Center. While other states like Michigan have offered some opposition contained in their legislation, many lack the thorough resistance being proposed by the “Live Free or Die” state of New Hampshire.

The following analysis introduces the bill:

This bill prohibits the state, political subdivisions, and the national guard from participating in enforcement of the counterterrorism detainment provisions of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act.

The full text is as follows:

CHAPTER 642-A3

PROTECTION FROM MILITARY ACTION

642:1 Protection Against Military Action Within New Hampshire. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, no New Hampshire agency, political subdivision, or employee of either acting in his or her official capacity, and no member of the New Hampshire national guard when such member is serving in the national guard, may knowingly engage in any activity that aids an agency of or the armed forces of the United States in the execution of 50 U.S.C. section 1541 as provided by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Public Law 112-18, section 1021, or any other similar law, order or regulation, in the investigation, arrest, detention, extra-judicial transfer to foreign jurisdictions or entities, military tribunal or trial, of any person within the United States. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to prevent cooperation with federal civilian authorities not acting pursuant to 50 U.S.C. section 1541, as provided by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Public Law 112-18, section 1021, or any other similar law, order, or regulation.

Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2015.

This type of legislation is essential, as it prohibits the much-needed local cooperation required by such federal dictates as the NDAA. It also closes the gaps left in other states’ legislation.

Michael Boldin explains:

It bans indefinite detention assistance to not just the U.S. Armed Forces, but any federal agency. It also broadens the scope beyond the specific sections of the 2012 NDAA to “any other similar law, order or regulation.” (emphasis added) [Source]

The Tenth Amendment Center comments on the significance of the strategy behind their model legislation:

Our research shows that at least 80% of all federal enforcement actions rely heavily on such “partnerships,” and that’s a very conservative estimate. The Liberty Preservation Act would ban this law enforcement participation.

When the federal government carries out an enforcement action, it not only relies on state or local law enforcement to carry the burden of much of the physical enforcement actions, it also relies heavily on logistics and information-sharing with state agencies. Whether the information is provided by fusion centers (which are often heavily funded by states and operated by them) or through sharing agreements, the Liberty Preservation Act would ban such actions. It would also ban all logistics assistance, setting up road blocks, putting on handcuffs, use of state or local jail or prison facilities, and the like.

[...]

As James Madison said, such a “refusal to cooperate” when done in multiple states can effectively stop federal acts by creating “obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”

An interactive map of other states that have nullified or propose to nullify the NDAA are available here. Take action in your state now to ensure that the United States as a whole can regain its position as a Republic based on immovable constitutional principles, and show the federal government that any time they attempt to roll out tyranny, we will be there to roll it back.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; US: Michigan; US: New Hampshire
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; evilobamaregime; impeachtheimposter; michigan; ndaa; newhampshire; tenthamendment; traitorousobama
How much more proof is needed to demonstrate the evil inherent in this most evil of all administrations in history?

Why are our elected representatives mute on this?

ALL states should live under the motto "Live Free Or Die!"

2014: Make it a truly Happy New Year by impeaching and removing the cancerous growth occupying the White Hut!

1 posted on 01/01/2014 5:17:37 AM PST by IbJensen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

South Carolina passed it in the Senate on Dec 27... Can’t yet find out about the House.


2 posted on 01/01/2014 5:26:13 AM PST by ThePatriotsFlag (...and to the Republic for which it stood.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
Government

THE BLAZE

‘Looks Like Weimar Germany’: The Viral Photo Out of Connecticut That’s Giving Some Gun Owners Chills Dec. 31, 2013 10:32pm Jason Howerton

A now-viral photo showing a long line of Connecticut residents waiting to register their guns and ammo is circulating across the Internet — and it’s sending chills down the backs of some gun owners.

Via: http://www.theblaze.com

3 posted on 01/01/2014 5:40:06 AM PST by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Wasn’t the NDAA passed by Congress and signed into law by...a republican? Bush if I recall.


4 posted on 01/01/2014 5:44:21 AM PST by servantboy777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
Why are our elected representatives mute on this?

Because all they are interested in is: getting re-elected; being called "Congressman" or "Senator;" self-aggrandizement; being wined and dined by lobbyists and filling their pockets with cash. Those that they represent or the Constitution, is never part of the equation.

5 posted on 01/01/2014 5:46:10 AM PST by JohnG45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

Instead of being in line to register their guns, they should have been in line to escape that state and get back into America.


6 posted on 01/01/2014 5:47:31 AM PST by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

What is the NDAA? This article fails to say.

To Google!


7 posted on 01/01/2014 5:49:02 AM PST by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnG45

Hell will indeed be overcrowded.


8 posted on 01/01/2014 5:49:27 AM PST by IbJensen (Liberals are like Slinkies, good for nothing, but you smile as you push them down the stairs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: servantboy777

Bush was, and is, a congenial dolt who did what HIS handlers told him to do. He wasn’t a criminal he was just in over his head at a time when America needed a sharp, permanent turn to the right.

Instead, America got a sharp turn to the left, over the cliff and down to a hell on earth.


9 posted on 01/01/2014 5:52:43 AM PST by IbJensen (Liberals are like Slinkies, good for nothing, but you smile as you push them down the stairs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
In the first sentence of the article:

National Defense Authorization Act

10 posted on 01/01/2014 5:55:01 AM PST by IbJensen (Liberals are like Slinkies, good for nothing, but you smile as you push them down the stairs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
>>Instead, America got a sharp turn to the left, over the cliff and down to a hell on earth.<<

Amen to that.

I loved all the photo ops of Bush out on the ranch in Crawford mending fences...what a freaking joke.

Baby Bush (born in Connecticut) and Daddy H.W.Bush (born in Massachusetts) are no more Texan than Obozo. They both were born up in the Northeast and dragged their Northeastern way of thinking down here to Texas.

Just like “The Maverick for Change” McCain. It's just embarrassing to refer to McCain as the Maverick for change. Nauseates me. The American electorate just eats this stuff up hook, line and sinker. We have some of the dumbest voters in the freaking world. Spoon fed by the MSM propaganda machine.

11 posted on 01/01/2014 6:10:51 AM PST by servantboy777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
>>Instead, America got a sharp turn to the left, over the cliff and down to a hell on earth.<<

Amen to that.

I loved all the photo ops of Bush out on the ranch in Crawford mending fences...what a freaking joke.

Baby Bush (born in Connecticut) and Daddy H.W.Bush (born in Massachusetts) are no more Texan than Obozo. They both were born up in the Northeast and dragged their Northeastern way of thinking down here to Texas.

Just like “The Maverick for Change” McCain. It's just embarrassing to refer to McCain as the Maverick for change. Nauseates me. The American electorate just eats this stuff up hook, line and sinker. We have some of the dumbest voters in the freaking world. Spoon fed by the MSM propaganda machine.

12 posted on 01/01/2014 6:12:27 AM PST by servantboy777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

I got that much. It is, after all, the act that guarantees that I get paid.

What I don’t get is what, specifically, about the act that needs to be opposed? Has something nefarious been attached to it?


13 posted on 01/01/2014 6:12:45 AM PST by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

The Hitler “quote” is widely and easily discredited. Hitler is like Yogi Berra, he never said most of the things he said. It does not bolster your arguments to use easily discredited quotes.


14 posted on 01/01/2014 6:27:38 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Doing the same thing and expecting different results is called software engineering.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

VERY POORLY written article.

The first rule is to introduce your subject!

There is no clue as what the objectionable elements of the NDAA were, such that the reader has a hint at what the States are objecting to.

Had to read past 6 paragraphs to get that info.


15 posted on 01/01/2014 6:38:14 AM PST by G Larry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

The moslem communist governor, Hassan, will never sign it.

It will have to be passed over her veto.


16 posted on 01/01/2014 6:43:03 AM PST by Westbrook ()Children do not divide your love, they multiply it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
4th paragraph:

This bill prohibits the state, political subdivisions, and the national guard from participating in enforcement of the counterterrorism detainment provisions of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act.

In other words, the central socialist government can load up your state with illegal, dangerous alien Democrat voters and you can't do a damned thing about it!

17 posted on 01/01/2014 6:43:13 AM PST by IbJensen (Liberals are like Slinkies, good for nothing, but you smile as you push them down the stairs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

I agree that historically typical journalese taught in America’s universities the subject was to be contained in the first paragraph and what follows was just additional info that supports the article’s thesis.

As you well know the vomit that gets regurgitated out of Congress is designed to make little or no sense. These fools are called legislators and they believe they must do a lot of that.


18 posted on 01/01/2014 6:48:46 AM PST by IbJensen (Liberals are like Slinkies, good for nothing, but you smile as you push them down the stairs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

This irony of this is that it has so far only been passed in mostly blue states: California, Virginia, and Michigan, along with Alaska. And despite whatever motives they have for doing so, the red states finally have, or *should* have, clear agreement in this authoritarian nightmare.

Any Republican who thinks this NDAA is a good idea, such as McCain and Graham, are further showing how really out of kilter their worldview is. And I’ll put George W. Bush in there as well.

The enemy is out there. The enemy is not here. Quit treating Americans like we were Taliban in Pakistan.

If you want to keep such malevolent characters out of the US, then do so. Don’t let them in, then say all America must be a prison because they dwell here.


19 posted on 01/01/2014 7:55:17 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (There Is Still A Very Hot War On Terror, Just Not On The MSM. Rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servantboy777; exDemMom

NDAA is the National Defense Authorization Act, the defense budget, the military’s budget.

It is part of the yearly PB (Presidents Budget) submission to congress.


20 posted on 01/01/2014 8:07:57 AM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hulka
"NDAA is the National Defense Authorization Act, the defense budget, the military’s budget."

Not quite. The National Defense Appropriations. Act would be the budget. Each year if the process is working normally, the policy objectives established by Congress end up in the Authorization Act and the money gets allocated via the Appropriations Act. A lot of stupidity makes its way into both, but the Authorizations Act is typically both more dangerous and a direct break on some of the political social experiments that might otherwise occur without oversight.

21 posted on 01/01/2014 9:08:54 AM PST by R W Reactionairy ("Everyone is entitled to their own opinion ... but not to their own facts" Daniel Patrick Moynihan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: R W Reactionairy

I should have been more clear.

The HAC and SAC (appropriators) independently work on their own version of the NDAA/Act/Bill. The HASC and SASC (authorizers) independently work on their own version.

After approval by their respective chambers, the HAC/SAC get together to work out their budget difference, and after approval by their respective chambers, the HASC/SASC work out their budget differences.

After that, the House and Senate versions of the military’s Authorization and Appropriations budgets are debated in conference committee where horse-trading takes place and a final, single version of the Act/Bill is agreed. Once agreed it is sent to the House and Senate for final approval (both chambers must approve, word-for-word, the same piece of legislation.)

A single NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) is sent to the president for his action. From the FY13 Act, it states: “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled” (It is a joint bill sent to the president.)

Indeed, the FY13 National Defense Authorization Act (pg 1) states: “This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Defense AUTHORIZATION Act for Fiscal Year” and goes on to say; “To authorize APPROPRIATIONS for fiscal year 2013 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.” (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr4310enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr4310enr.pdf).

So, as you can see, there is no National Defense Appropriations Act, just a single National Defense Authorization Act.

In my experience, during negotiations, the appropriators hold real power and the authorizers ‘recede’ to the appropriators when it comes down to it.

I am sure my detailed response was not necessary for you, but given most people never really are exposed to the budget-building process, I thought a primer was good to have.

To me, it is a very complicated and hard to explain process. It is maddening, actually. Oh, and like all things ‘government,’ some of the process may be modified or adjusted from time to time.

Cheers.


22 posted on 01/01/2014 10:12:29 AM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
ALL states should live under the motto "Live Free Or Die!"

Red Hampshire...one of the most heavily-regulated states in the Union...hardly 'free'.

23 posted on 01/01/2014 10:16:39 AM PST by who knows what evil? (G-d saved more animals than people on the ark...www.siameserescue.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook
LOL...most people in Red Hampshire can't even pronounce the Governor's name properly...it's 'Americanized' for the masses. Communist? Muslim?

Spot on.

24 posted on 01/01/2014 10:19:26 AM PST by who knows what evil? (G-d saved more animals than people on the ark...www.siameserescue.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; servantboy777; IbJensen

Yes, there definitely was something nefarious attached to it in 2012.

Unlimited detention of American citizens on domestic soil, with no recourse to an attorney. This part of the act has continued in 2013 and 2014.

I’m surprised this was not mentioned.

Not only was it not mentioned, but there is an attempt on this thread to hang all of this around the neck of George W. Bush.

When people became concerned with this part of the act, Obama at first said he wouldn’t sign it. It was passed. He signed it. He then said he wouldn’t enforce it. All those who believe him, raise your hand.

Some prominent left-leaning people brought a suit against this part of the act in New York City in 2012. The judge rulsed against them.

Congressman Amash has been the leading opponent of this provision.


25 posted on 01/01/2014 10:31:24 AM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; servantboy777; IbJensen
This is the first link that comes up on Google when you enter Amash NDAA.
26 posted on 01/01/2014 10:41:29 AM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: who knows what evil?

It was until the liberals moved in from NY, Mass, Del, NJ and brought their politics with them.


27 posted on 01/01/2014 11:04:37 AM PST by IbJensen (Liberals are like Slinkies, good for nothing, but you smile as you push them down the stairs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Hulka

>>NDAA is the National Defense Authorization Act, the defense budget, the military’s budget.<<

I’m pretty sure everyone already knows that. The legislation contained within the NDAA over the last few years is what’s got folks up in arms.


28 posted on 01/01/2014 11:24:43 AM PST by servantboy777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: firebrand

Yep, indefinite detention, (and picked up and incarerated by our own military is permitted), of American citizens with the Feds not required to render ANY due process. Any ‘terroristic’ activity, (Remember VP Biden said the Tea Party were terrorists), as deemed by the Feds, is what can result in indefinite detention. This is a Nazi Germany style thing that after 2 years now still has not hit home for most Americans. ANYONE who supports this is no Conservative. (Including my former favorite, Allen West, who voted for it, along with many other Republicans). This is not tin foil stuff. This really passed. First on a late night 12/31/2011, (Yep, New Years Eve!!!), vote if I remember right.


29 posted on 01/01/2014 11:46:15 AM PST by bobby.223 (Retired up in the snowy mountains of the American Redoubt and it's a GREAT life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: servantboy777

I understand. I was responding to a post wherein the person was asking what “NDAA” was.

Regarding “The legislation contained within the NDAA over the last few years is what’s got folks up in arms.”

I read the legislation and to me I find a lot of angst over a non-issue.

When I am being told something I usually try to find the source document and read it myself. In this case I did and find protections remain.

Consider, from the referenced NDAA, “LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS, SUBTITLE D—COUNTERTERRORISM, Section 1033—Habeas Corpus Rights:” “This section would state that nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution for any person who is detained in the United States pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40).”


30 posted on 01/01/2014 12:37:04 PM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: servantboy777

Oh. . .and if you can direct me to the section that states US citizens are liable for indefinite detention and other such threats, please do, as I want to read it and mark for reference. Thanks.


31 posted on 01/01/2014 12:39:06 PM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Hulka

“The most controversial provisions to receive wide attention were contained in subsections 1021–1022 of Title X, Subtitle D, entitled ‘Counter-Terrorism’, authorizing the indefinite military detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism, including U.S. citizens arrested on American soil.”

—from Wikipedia

The only false statement I see in this is the mention of “wide attention.” Sections 1021 and 1022 have not gotten nearly the amount of attention they should have received.

Almost everyone I speak to about this has never heard of it. In a meeting of fairly well-informed people not too long ago, the fight against the NSA surveillance got lots of applause, and when the next sentence was spoken, about the fight against unlimited detention of Americans, only one person clapped, followed belatedly by some others.


32 posted on 01/01/2014 1:21:12 PM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: firebrand

Thanks.

I really don’t go to wiki and I don’t use them as source material. I look for the source document itself. I appreciate the effort, of course.

The final paragraph of my post comes from the source document and contrary to the hype, it points out that US citizen rights are protected.

The final paragraph of my post quotes: “LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS, SUBTITLE D—COUNTERTERRORISM, Section 1033—Habeas Corpus Rights:” “This section would state that nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution for any person who is detained in the United States pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40).”

The sections you reference, 1021-1022, are interesting.

Sec 1021 addresses “Extension of authority to make rewards for combating terrorism.”

It states: “(a) EXTENSION.—Section 127b(c)(3)(C) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 2013’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2014’’.
(b) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report that outlines the future requirements and authorities to make rewards for combating terrorism. The report shall include—(1) an analysis of future requirements under section 127b of title 10, United States Code; (2) a detailed description of requirements for rewards in support of operations with allied forces; and (3) an overview of geographic combatant commander requirements through September 30, 2014.

As far as I can tell, no controversy there.

And Sec 1022 addresses; “Prohibition on use of funds to construct or modify facilities in the United States to house detainees transferred from United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.”

It states: “(a) IN GENERAL.—No amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2013 may be used to construct or modify any facility in the United States, its territories, or possessions to house any individual detained at Guantanamo for the purposes of detention or imprisonment in the custody or under the control of the Department of Defense unless authorized by Congress.
(b) EXCEPTION.—The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not
apply to any modification of facilities at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
(c) INDIVIDUAL DETAINED AT GUANTANAMO DEFINED.—In this
section, the term ‘‘individual detained at Guantanamo’’ has the meaning given that term in section 1028(f)(2).

As far as I can tell, this section stops the president from closing gitmo or transferring the slim from gitmo to the US. So, no controversy there.

Now, Sec 1028: “REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATIONS RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF DETAINEES AT UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION,
GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA, TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES
AND OTHER FOREIGN ENTITIES.” With Sec 1028(f)(2) stating: “includes an assessment, in classified or unclassified form, of the capacity, willingness, and past practices (if applicable) of the foreign country or entity in relation to the Secretary’s certifications.”

Can’t see controversy there.

Unless there is another part of the source document that says otherwise, I go with the plainly written words in Sec 1033—”nothing shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus” to US citizens.

I think what we see/hear is the usual, and much needed, critical eye on the government examining potential areas of abuse. What I also see/hear, is a section that is clearly written to go after terrorist slim and protect US citizen rights-—but the section protecting the rights of US citizens is conveniently over-looked for some reason.

Therefore, I hypothesize, people are now reacting to alleged abuse written into the NDAA rather than challenging what others are telling them what to feel. I bristle at being told what to think about anything so I read source materials to find out if what I am being told is true or not.

I am tired of hype and over-heated rhetoric spewed for whatever aim. It baffles me why, with source materials out there, more people aren’t engaging in critical thinking; we presume the worst from our government (of course, as we should), but somehow we do not presume others may have their own agendas at play and therefore they are willingly misled when those nefarious people manipulate them for their own ends.

Cheers.


33 posted on 01/01/2014 2:00:50 PM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: servantboy777

According to the article, this was first in the 2012 NDAA, renewed by the 2014 NDAA sent to Obama for his signature. I just don’t see how GW Bush signed the 2012 bill and I’m pretty sure it won’t go to his desk for signature this year either.


34 posted on 01/01/2014 2:10:28 PM PST by KenD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

It passed unanimously here in Michigan.

Senate Bill 94: Prohibit Michigan National Guard executing federal “indefinite detention”
Passed 35 to 0 in the Senate on December 11, 2013, to concur with the House-passed version of the bill.
See Who Voted “Yes” and Who Voted “No” at http://www.michiganvotes.org/RollCall.aspx?ID=676539


35 posted on 01/01/2014 6:15:01 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

I’d stand in that line as long as it took. Then I’d tell the folks behind the counter to go f*** themselves.


36 posted on 01/01/2014 6:17:50 PM PST by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

The only thing missing in that photo is the border collies.


37 posted on 01/01/2014 6:22:02 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Hulka

The law contradicts itself. That is what the controversy is about. That was what the lawsuit in NYC was about. Who knows which part of it will be taken seriously? Why add that amendment if the law was clear without it?

I’d like to ask Allen West why he voted in favor. Maybe he was misled along with many other congressmen.


38 posted on 01/01/2014 7:11:25 PM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

Police using lawful gun ownership as an excuse for “No Knock” home invasions
by Coach Collins

by Doug Book, editor

Texas courts have ruled that because legally owned firearms represent “a threat of physical violence” to police, officers may ignore the 4th Amendment rights of Texas residents by treating ALL legally issued warrants as “No Knock” warrants, even if the issuing judge has made it clear that officers “...must knock on the door and announce their identity and purpose before attempting a forcible entry.”

In August of 2006, police in Collin County, Texas obtained a warrant to search the home of John Quinn based on information that Quinn’s son might be keeping a controlled substance on the premises. Although the warrant “...did not authorize police to enter the residence without knocking and announcing their entry,” the County SWAT Team broke through Quinn’s door unannounced, “...based solely on the suspicion that there were firearms in the Quinn household.” Not aware of who had broken into his home, the suddenly awakened Quinn was shot by officers as he grabbed a nearby gun for the purpose of defending his life, family and property. All firearms in the home were legally owned by Quinn. Police discovered less than 1 gm of cocaine on the premises.

When Quinn took the Collin County SWAT Team to court for ignoring the terms of the search warrant by turning it into a “No Knock” warrant, the court ruled that “...because police had information that guns were present at the residence, they were justified in making a forced and unannounced invasion into Quinn’s home.” In short, a judge decided John Quinn represented a criminal danger based upon the legal exercise of his 2nd amendment rights.

The Rutherford Institute has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the Quinn case, writing to the Court that:

“...in the absence of any evidence of actual danger to police, the legal possession of a firearm, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, is not sufficient to justify allowing police to override the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unannounced “no-knock” home invasions when executing warrants.”

The Supreme Court has ruled on a number of occasions that law enforcement may NOT look upon the free exercise of constitutionally protected rights as an inference of guilt. For example, police may NOT presume that because an individual asserts his right to remain silent or speak with an attorney, he is deserving of additional suspicion of guilt.

Should Americans who exercise their God given, constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms be refused the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures? The suggestion by law enforcement, courts or lawmakers that the exercise of one constitutionally protected right should somehow render an American ineligible for the free exercise of—or protection guaranteed by—another right is despicable, disgraceful and a thoroughly unconstitutional assault on each of us.

Law enforcement has been given the “legal” authority to view Texas gun owners as potential criminals and to treat them accordingly. Every armed Texan is therefore presumed guilty until proven innocent. Does this mean police may legally gun down the holder of a Concealed Carry license on sight, based on the belief that being armed makes such a person likely to kill an officer?

Courts have dramatically weakened our 4th Amendment protections during the past several decades. If this trend is not reversed, open warfare will eventually become the only means of reclaiming lost liberty.

Sources:

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/rutherford_institute_asks_us_supreme_court_to_ensure_that_lawful_gun_owners

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Additional reading:

http://www.examiner.com/article/government-violations-of-4th-amendment-tsa-airport-procedures

http://libertycrier.com/u-s-constitution/did-police-officers-violate-a-homeowners-fourth-amendment-rights/?utm_source=The+Liberty+Crier&utm_campaign=359e249b8a-The_Liberty_Crier_Daily_News_3_9_2013&utm_medium=email


39 posted on 01/02/2014 7:07:08 AM PST by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: firebrand

Thank you.

I am not sure where the law contradicts itself and can’t find quotes or exact references. Would you be able to help?

Again, thanks.


40 posted on 01/02/2014 7:16:06 AM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Hulka

1021 of the 2012 law allows unlimited detention of American citizens without due process or recourse to an attorney.

The body of the bill says nothing supersedes habeas corpus.

So which part is correct?

I don’t know where these two things are in the 2014 version. I would have to look it up. I know they are still there.

Do you trust the administration to enforce the part of the act that we like over the part of the bill we don’t like?

Why would they keep passing and signing it with that amendment in there if they don’t intend to use it, either in actuality or as a chilling threat? It needs to be gone.


41 posted on 01/02/2014 10:27:19 AM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: firebrand

“1021 of the 2012 law allows unlimited detention of American citizens without due process or recourse to an attorney.
The body of the bill says nothing supersedes habeas corpus.
So which part is correct?”

I looked into this, actually reading the Acts.

This is what I found (and there is a Section in FY12 NDAA that does indeed prohibit unlimited detention of American citizens.

Here is what I found:

I looked in the FY11 NDAA and didn’t find anything.

Looking in the FY2012 NDAA, I found an interesting Section (Title X General Provisions). It is in this section we find what is causing the reactions we are observing.

Subsection D-Counterterrorism, para C (1), pg 1562 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ81/pdf/PLAW-112publ81.pdf)

“(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; 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.

And. . .

“(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.”

Sounds like you are correct, but maybe not. . .

It can’t be more clear (no misunderstanding), in this same section, addressing detentions, it clearly and unambiguously states:

“(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.”

As you can see, the perception that American citizens can be held indefinitely is not a fact.

Simple. No confusion. As I said before, we should be wary of our own government BUT we must also be wary of others that try to manipulate and mislead us for their own ends, to use our distrust of government to their own ends—whatever they might be.

The problem is nobody is reading para (e), the section that exempts US citizens (or others living in the US), from para c(1). Too many people are just reacting and not thinking. Simply put, someone serves nonsense and because the nonsense fits their preconceived notions and biases, they eat the whole pile without once checking for themselves. I bet over 99% of those reacting to the NDAA, a) don’t know what the NDAA actually is, and b) never read it for themselves.

The Section reads:
Subsection D – Counterterrorism
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.
(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; 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 forces.
(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 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 person’s 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 States.

Cheers. . .


42 posted on 01/03/2014 9:08:30 AM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Hulka

“In December 2011, President Obama signed the 2012 NDAA, codifying indefinite military detention without charge or trial into law for the first time in American history. The NDAA’s dangerous detention provisions would authorize the president — and all future presidents — to order the military to pick up and indefinitely imprison people captured anywhere in the world, far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.”

This is currently posted on the ACLU website.


43 posted on 01/03/2014 11:53:15 AM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: firebrand

Yes. I understand, and appreciate the reference to what the ACLU says.

Absent an actual reference to the legislation, who are you going to believe, what you are being told by the ACLU or what you can actually read/see for yourself.

I’ve provided a link to the actual legislation. I respectfully ask if you can identify where the US government is allowed to snatch Americans off the streets of America and hold them indefinitely.

Seriously. Please do.

There is simply no “there” there, and I’ve read the legislation, and quoted the relevant portions of the Act, and the Act is quite clear—no indefinite detentions of US citizens.

I think the ACLU and others such as them, are against the indefinite detention of foreigners. They simply don’t like the idea of holding POWs until the war is over.

The hypothesize the ACLU, the defenders of American-haters, has an agenda at play. Much like the homosexual community convincing the heterosexual community they are just as likely to contract HIV/AIDS, the ACLU is doing the exact same thing reference indefinite detention. If I can convince Average Joe American that he can be snatched off the street and held forever, then I generate unwarranted support.

Unless I can be directed to contrary legislation stating otherwise, this indefinite detention thing is misleading hype. No one thus far has been able to cite and quote anything in the law that proves the allegation that Americans can be snatched off the streets and held indefinitely.

There simply is no legislation saying so. So, what are you going to do? Read the legislation and think for yourself, or are you going to believe what you are TOLD to feel about the subject.

I thank you for the civil tone during this exchange. Refreshing, and if you come across legislation proving this indefinite detention of American citizens, please share.

While the hype fits preconceived notions of potential abuse, there are no such authorizations.


44 posted on 01/03/2014 2:09:20 PM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: firebrand

Oh, and yes, the ACLU is referencing indefinite detention but artfully not saying it applies to US citizens.

Cheers.


45 posted on 01/03/2014 2:10:26 PM PST by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson