Acts of Tyranny by the Last Two U.S. Presidents
The Constitutional principle of habeas corpus protects against unlawful and indefinite imprisonment. The United States Constitution specifies that, "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless, when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the pubic safety may require it."
The Insurrection Act of 1807 is an exception to the Posse Commitatus statute, which forbids the use of military assets in domestic law enforcement, except as allowed by the Constitution or an act of Congress. The original Insurrection Act required the President to seek approval from state legislatures or governors before deploying soldiers, except in cases where: a localized breakdown of authority has made the enforcement of federal laws “impracticable”; or any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy “hinders the execution of the laws of that State … that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law.”
On October 17, 2006, there were two acts of tyranny committed:
1. The first was a public signing by President George W. Bush of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which suspended habeas corpus. This Act will allow the President to declare you an 'enemy combatant,' ending your rights to seek legal or judicial relief from unlawful imprisonment.
2. The second act of tyranny took place in a private Oval Office ceremony in which the President signed into law the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2007, which essentially eliminates the protections of the Posse Comitatus Act and which re-wrote the Insurrection Act, a federal law which allows the President to deploy federal troops within the United States in the event that state authorities are unable to maintain the rule of law within their own borders. The NDAA will allow the President to declare a 'public emergency' and take control of state-based National Guard units, without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to 'suppress public disorder.'
Military Commissions Act of 2006
The suspending of habeas corpus will be applied to 'non citizens,' but once one class of people is deprived of their rights it's only a matter of time before other groups are also deprived. Moreover, the Act's 'enemy combatant' designation applies to both Americans and foreigners. Thus by establishing military tribunals for 'enemy combatants', the Military Commissions Act of 2006 puts the U.S. military in control of American citizens.
John W. Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007
The John W. Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 alters the two-centuries-old Insurrection Act, which Congress passed in 1807 to limit the President's power to deploy troops within the United States. It subverts solid, longstanding Posse Comitatus statutes that limit the military's involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law.
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012
On December 31, 2011, another act of tyranny was committed when President Barack Obama singed into law The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012.
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA) , S. 1253, authorizes the indefinite military detention of U.S. citizens without charge or trial (suspending habeas corpus, a constitutional principle that protects against unlawful and indefinite imprisonment). NDAA permits the military to detain and interrogate supposed domestic terror suspects in violation of the Fourth Amendment and Posse Comitatus.
These provisions of the NDAA are so radical that they actually remove much of the protections American citizens have had since 1878 under the Posse Comitatus Act and the Non-Detention Act of 1971.
What has been exposed publicly points directly to overt takeovers of the constitutional government via martial law, the use of troops on the street (in violation of Posse Comitatus), and a definitive takeover of all communications, including the establishment of secure emergency communications lines for the the Continuity of Government controllers. More to the point, it validates the worst of fears – that rhetoric issued from political leaders in America demonizing its people as potential terrorists relates to real plans, albeit obscured from popular public knowledge, to target and indefinitely detain dissidents and other ordinary citizens any during declared emergencies, or for any pretext of national security.
Section 1031 of the NDAA declares the whole of the United States as a “battlefield” and allows American citizens to be arrested on U.S. soil and incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay. Section 1031 would be the first time in more than 60 years that our so-called representatives in Washington would allow indefinite detention of American citizens with no charges or trial without Congressional authorization.
Since 1971 the Non-Detention Act has stipulated, “No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress,” but S. 1253 could make this a thing of the past.
The ACLU points out that while Subsection 1031(c) claims that it does not apply to lawful residents of the United States or citizens “on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States except to the extent permitted by the Constitution,” glaring loopholes remain.
If the government’s track record is any indicator, we can expect these loopholes to be exploited at every possible opportunity. We can expect the government to use NDAA to detain people for completely illegitimate reasons. These loopholes allow suspects to be imprisoned without charge or trial, especially citizens or lawful residents who are suspected of some sort of wrongdoing outside of the United States.
The most unsettling aspect is that the deciding factor in determining if an individual can be detained indefinitely is not any proof of guilt, but instead entirely by officials in the Executive Branch, which, according to the ACLU would be “following some future agency regulations.”
It is quite shocking how much the federal government is attempting to push us towards a dictatorship with no legal protection whatsoever from being locked up with no hope of a fair trial or even charges.
Indeed the legislation would allow American citizens to be imprisoned “until the end of hostilities” under 2001's Authorization for Use of Military Force, or S.J. Res. 23.
Yet this represents no concrete timeframe whatsoever, and Section 1031 would allow American citizens and non-citizen civilians who had no role in 9/11, or any other hostilities whatsoever, to be detained who would otherwise not be detainable under the laws of war.
Section 1032 of NDAA puts civilians who would otherwise not be subject to military control into military detention, thus removing the protections of the Posse Comitatus act. Like Section 1031, this would include indefinite imprisonment of civilians apprehended inside of the United States. Section 1032 does not authorize the military to detain civilians without charge or trial -- it in fact it mandates it.
The protection against the government using the military for law enforcement activities within the United States under Posse Comitatus would be eliminated under Section 1032; and the ACLU points out that, “all state and federal law enforcement would be preempted by the military.”
Previously the state and local law enforcement agencies and the Department of Justice had the primary responsibility to enforce anti-terrorism laws within the United States. The NDAA would, in the case of many civilian suspects, remove federal, state and local law enforcement from the process of investigation, arrest, criminal prosecution and imprisonment and hand said powers over to the military.
The Judiciary Committee should assert their jurisdiction over these provisions in order to prevent civilian law enforcement against civilians who would otherwise be out of the purview of the military to fall into the hands of the military.
The militarization of law enforcement has innoculated citizens to military-like equipment and gear on the streets of the United States so that when we are put under Martial Law, we will not resist. There is a declining state of Posse Commitatus and a growing interplay between military tactics, hardware, operations, and domestic law enforcement.
No comments:
Post a Comment