Santa's Secret Legislation and a One-way Train to Gitmo: Was the Section on the Indefinite Military Detention of U.S. Citizens in the National Defense Authorization Act Merged with the Consolidated Appropriations Act and Signed into Law on December 23, 2011?
[On December 23, 2011] President Barack Obama signed both the tax cut extension and the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 prior to leaving for his Hawaii vacation. - Obama Signs National Defense Authorization Act and Clarifies Misinformation Campaign, Chocolate City, December 23, 2011On December 15, 2011, Congress approved a final version of the National Defense Authorization Act, the NDAA. This legislation provides new authority for military policies and programs. The House and Senate Armed Services Committees met to “reconcile” the two respective versions of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2012 which the House (HR 1540) and the Senate (S 1867) had passed.
The “reconciled” version has retained S. 1867′s Sections 1031 and 1032. The “exemption for U.S. citizens” pertains to Sec. 1032; the indefinite detention and denial of the right to trial to “even U.S. citizens” pertains to S.1867′s Sec. 1031 — the same Sec. 1031 that we find so problematic and threatening. - U.S. Citizens Still Subject to Detention w/out Trial in Final Version of Defense Bill, Fellowship of Minds
Ron Paul: The NDAA Repeals More Rights
December 27, 2011Ron Paul - Little by little, in the name of fighting terrorism, our Bill of Rights is being repealed. The 4th amendment has been rendered toothless by the PATRIOT Act. No more can we truly feel secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects when now there is an exception that fits nearly any excuse for our government to search and seize our property.
Of course, the vast majority of Americans may say “I’m not a terrorist, so I have no reason to worry.” However, innocent people are wrongly accused all the time. The Bill of Rights is there precisely because the founders wanted to set a very high bar for the government to overcome in order to deprive an individual of life or liberty. To lower that bar is to endanger everyone. When the bar is low enough to include political enemies, our descent into totalitarianism is virtually assured.
The PATRIOT Act, as bad is its violation of the 4th Amendment, was just one step down the slippery slope.
The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) continues that slip toward tyranny and in fact accelerates it significantly. The main section of concern, Section 1021 of the NDAA Conference Report, does to the 5th Amendment what the PATRIOT Act does to the 4th. The 5th Amendment is about much more than the right to remain silent in the face of government questioning. It contains very basic and very critical stipulations about due process of law. The government cannot imprison a person for no reason and with no evidence presented or access to legal counsel.
The dangers in the NDAA are its alarmingly vague, undefined criteria for who can be indefinitely detained by the US government without trial. It is now no longer limited to members of al Qaeda or the Taliban, but anyone accused of “substantially supporting” such groups or “associated forces.” How closely associated? And what constitutes “substantial” support? What if it was discovered that someone who committed a terrorist act was once involved with a charity? Or supported a political candidate? Are all donors of that charity or supporters of that candidate now suspect, and subject to indefinite detainment? Is that charity now an associated force?
Additionally, this legislation codifies in law for the first time authority to detain Americans that has to this point only been claimed by President Obama.
According to subsection (e) of section 1021, “[n]othing 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.” This means the president’s widely expanded view of his own authority to detain Americans indefinitely even on American soil is for the first time in this legislation codified in law. That should chill all of us to our cores.
The Bill of Rights has no exemptions for “really bad people” or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. That is not a weakness in our legal system; it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the bill of rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war, and the entire Unites States is a battlefield in the War on Terror. This is a very dangerous development indeed. Beware.
Obama Signs National Defense Authorization Act and Clarifies Misinformation Campaign
December 23, 2011
Chocolate City - Today President Barack Obama signed both the tax cut extension and the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 prior to leaving for his Hawaii vacation. He has been in Washington nearly a week after his wife, first lady Michelle Obama, and their daughters left for Hawaii.
There have been some misinformation surrounding the 2012 NDAA which the White House has somewhat clarified. The misunderstanding is due to the misinterpretation of provisions included in Sections 1021 and 1022 of the act.
Sections 1021 and 1022 of NDAA are important part of the 2012 NDAA and provide vital clarity for the U.S. Armed Forces defending America around the world. Section 1021 does not in anyway infringe upon the rights of U.S. citizen’s to due process.
Following is the President’s H.R. 2055 signing statements:
Today I have signed into law H.R. 2055, the "Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012." This bill provides the funding necessary for the smooth operation of our Nation's Government.
I have previously announced that it is the policy of my Administration, and in the interests of promoting transparency in Government, to indicate when a bill presented for Presidential signature includes provisions that are subject to well-founded constitutional objections. The Department of Justice has advised that a small number of provisions of H.R. 2055 raise constitutional concerns.
In this bill, the Congress has once again included provisions that would bar the use of appropriated funds for transfers of Guantanamo detainees into the United States (section 8119 of Division A), as well as transfers to the custody or effective control of foreign countries unless specified conditions are met (section 8120 of Division A). These provisions are similar to others found in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. My Administration has repeatedly communicated my objections to these provisions, including my view that they could, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. In approving this bill, I reiterate the objections my Administration has raised regarding these provisions, my intent to interpret and apply them in a manner that avoids constitutional conflicts, and the promise that my Administration will continue to work towards their repeal.
The Congress has also included certain provisions in this bill that could interfere with my constitutional authorities in the areas of foreign relations and national security. Section 113 of Division H requires the Secretary of Defense to notify the Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress 30 days in advance of "any proposed military exercise involving United States personnel" that is anticipated to involve expenditures of more than $100,000 on construction. Language in Division I, title I, under the headings International Organizations, Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities, disallows the expenditure of funds "for any United Nations peacekeeping mission that will involve United States Armed Forces under the command or operational control of a foreign national," unless my military advisers have advised that such an involvement is in the national interest, and unless I have made the same recommendation to the Congress. In approving this bill, I reiterate the understanding, which I have communicated to the Congress, that I will apply these provisions in a manner consistent with my constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.
Numerous provisions of this bill purport to condition the authority of executive branch officials to spend or reallocate funds on the approval of congressional committees. These are constitutionally impermissible forms of congressional aggrandizement in the execution of the laws. Although my Administration will notify the relevant committees before taking the specified actions, and will accord the recommendations of such committees appropriate and serious consideration, our spending decisions shall not be treated as dependent on the approval of congressional committees. In particular, section 1302 of Division G conditions the authority of the Librarian of Congress to transfer funds between sections of the Library upon the approval of the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate. I have advised the Congress of my understanding that this provision does not apply to funds for the Copyright Office, which performs an executive function in administering the copyright laws.
No comments:
Post a Comment