New Defense Bill Will Boost War and Tyranny

For many of us concerned with liberty, the letters “NDAA” have come to symbolize Washington’s ongoing effort to undermine the U.S. Constitution in the pursuit of constant war overseas. It was the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2012 that introduced into law the idea that American citizens could be indefinitely detained without warrant or charge if a government bureaucrat decided they had assisted al-Qaeda or “associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States.” No charges, no trial, just disappeared Americans.

The National Defense Authorization bill should be a Congressional mechanism to bind the president to spend national defense money in the way Congress wishes. It is the nuts and bolts of the defense budget and as such is an important oversight tool preventing the imperial executive from treating the military as his own private army. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case these days.

Why am I revisiting the NDAA? Since 2012, these bills have passed the House with less and less scrutiny. This week the House is going to vote on final passage of yet another Defense Authorization, this time for fiscal year 2017. Once again it is a terrible piece of legislation that does great harm to the United States under the guise of protecting this country.

The argument against a draft should appeal to all: you own your own body. No state has the right to force you to kill or be killed against your will. No state has a claim on your life. We are born with freedoms not granted by the state, but by our creator. Only authoritarians seek to take that away from us.

Along with extending draft registration to women, the latest NDAA expands the neocons’ new “Cold War” with Russia, adding $3.4 billion to put U.S. troops and heavy weapons on Russia’s border because, as the bill claims, “Russia presents the greatest threat to our national security.” This NDAA also includes the military slush fund of nearly $60 billion for the president to spend on wars of his choosing without the need to get Congress involved. Despite all the cries that we need to “rebuild the military," this year’s Defense Authorization bill has a higher base expenditure than last year. There have been no cuts in the military. On the contrary: the budget keeps grow-ing.

The Defense Authorization bill should remain notorious. It represents most of what is wrong with Washington. It is welfare for the well-connected defense contractors and warfare on our economy and the rest of the world. This reckless spending does nothing to defend the United States. It is hastening our total economic collapse.

NDAA is the defense budget. Nothing more than that. And congress has the power to authorize and appropriate funds for that budget. That is nothing new.

The units tell their higher headquarters what they need, then that HQ tells its HQ and so on until it reaches the Pentagon where the shopping list is prioritized and then sent to the Sec Def. The Sec Def does his oqn balancing of priorities to cobble together a single defense request that is forwarded to the White House. The White House then adjusts the request in accordance with its priorities and such and then sends (the now named PB - president budget) to congress.

Congress has four committees that scrub the PB. The HASC and SASC, the HAC-D and the SAC-D, all have their hacks at the budget. It is a food fight like ALL DC budget requests are, and negotiation is standard. Once the committees doe their thing and differences are resolved, then the defense budget (”NDAA”) is sent to the president for signature.

Again, the NDAA is nothing new. It is the defense budget.

Detention of American citizens indefinitely was addressed:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3107175/posts, Posts 20, 28, 31, 32.

A couple years ago but directly addresses the subject.

Post 32:
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.

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.