NDAA Does Apply to Americans.doc

7/29/2019 NDAA Does Apply to Americans.doc

1/14

NDAA Does Apply to Americans, and here's thetext that says so!!!

November 2 nd 2012

(Natural News) In the aftermath of the signing of the NDAA by the traitorous President Obama,some citizens remain completely hoodwinked by the language of the bill, running around theinternet screaming that the law "does not apply to American citizens."

This is, naturally, part of the side effect of having such a dumbed-down education system

where people can't even parse the English language anymore. If you read the bill andunderstand what it says, it clearly offers absolutely no protections of U.S. citizens. In fact, itaffirms that Americans are subjected to indefinite detainment under "existing authorities."

Let's parse it intelligently, shall we?

First off, the offending section of the bill that used to be called 1031 was moved to 1021. Hereis the title:

(http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-... )

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATESTO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OFMILITARY FORCE.

The two relevant sections to consider are titled and stated as follows;

(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.

By PARSING the language here, we must split it into two sentences based on the "or"operator. This statement essentially means:

Nothing in this section is intended to LIMIT the authority of the President or the scope of theAuthorization for Use of Military Force.

Nothing in this section is intended to EXPAND the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

In other words, this section places no limits whatsoever of the "authority of the President" touse military force (against American citizens). Keep that in mind as you read the next section:

1
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdfhttp://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf


2/14

(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 theUnited States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

This section "e" is the section that the hoodwinked people on the internet are running aroundsaying "protects American citizens" from the NDAA. But where do they dream up suchlanguage? If you read section (e) again, you'll discover it says nothing whatsoever aboutprotecting American citizens from the NDAA. Instead, here's what it really says when parsedinto two sentences based on the "or" operator:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing LAW relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons whoare captured or arrested in the United States.

Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing AUTHORITIES relating to thedetention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other

persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

In other words, section (e) only says that it does not alter "existing authorities" relating to thedetention of US citizens.

So to answer the question about whether this affects U.S. citizens, you have to understand"existing authorities."

What are those "existing authorities?"

Existing authorities already allow indefinite detainment and the killingof American citizens

As everyone who studies history well knows, the Patriot Act already establishes an "existingauthority" that anyone suspected of being involved in terrorist-related activities can be

arrested and detained without trial. If you don't believe me, just Google it yourself. This is nota debated issue; it's widely recognized.

Furthermore, President Obama already insists that he has the authority to kill Americancitizens merely by decree! As Reuters reported on October 5, 2011, a "secret panel" of government officials (who report to the President) can decide to place an American citizen ona "kill list" and then murder that person, without trial, without due process, and without evenbeing arrested. ( http://www.reuters.com/article/2011... )

Importantly, as Reuters reports, "Two principal legal theories were advanced [in support of thekill list authority] -- first, that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the

use of military forces against militants in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001."Are you getting this yet? So the authority ALREADY exists for the President to order thekilling of an American citizen. All that is required is that they be suspected of being involvedin terrorism in any way, and not a shred of evidence is required by the government to supportthat. There is no trial, no arraignment, no evidence and not even a hearing. You are simplyaccused and then disappeared.

2
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-cia-killlist-idUSTRE79475C20111005http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-cia-killlist-idUSTRE79475C20111005


3/14

Thus, the authority already exists, you see, and the NDAA openly states that "Nothing in thissection shall be construed to affect existing AUTHORITIES..."

In other words, the NDAA does nothing to protect American citizens, and it piggy-backs on thePatriot Act as well as Obama's executive "kill list" justifications to essentially place allAmericans in the crosshairs of government murderers or military action.

Rep. Justin Amash, a Congressman from Michigan, explains:

The key to subsection 1021(e) is its claim that sec. 1021 does not "affect existing law or authorities" relating to the detention of persons arrested on U.S. soil. If the President'sexpansive view of his own power were in statute, that statement would be true. Instead, thesection codifies the President's view as if it had always existed, authorizing detention of "persons" regardless of citizenship or where they are arrested. It then disingenuously saysthe bill doesn't change that view. (http://www.facebook.com/note.php?no... )

Storing food could get you labeled as a terror suspect

So then, you might be wondering, "What kinds of activities could get me accused of beinginvolved in supporting terrorism?"

And here's the kicker, because all the following activities could cause you to be arrested,detained, interrogated and even murdered all under U.S. law, thanks to Obama:

Criticizing the federal government. Using cash to purchase things. Storing food and medical supplies. Owning a firearm and storing ammunition. Standing still and minding your own business near a government building. Writing something down on a piece of paper near a government building.

Using a pair of binoculars. Protesting for animal rights in front of a medical lab. Protesting your government (or Wall Street). Requesting to take more than a couple thousand dollars out of your bank account in cash.

You see, under existing authority, you could be labeled a "terror suspect" for engaging in anyof these activities, and then LEGALLY arrested, detained, interrogated or even killed by theU.S. government, all under Obama's authority (or whatever next President takes over inWashington and perhaps does far worse things with that power...)

You are already enemy combatants, folks. The NDAA does absolutely nothing to protect you

from its provisions. In fact, it openly states that it does not limit existing authorities --authorities which already claim the right to subject you to indefinite military detention merelyfor being "suspected" of involvement with "terrorism," which could be interpreted to apply inpractically any situation.

3
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=296584837047596http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=296584837047596


4/14

Reading between the lines

Get this through your heads, folks: to properly understand the NDAA (or any other bill), youhave to learn to think like lawyers and tyrants.

They don't just put language right out in plain view that says, "Americans may never bearrested or detained without due process." Instead, they create a web of legalese statementsthat are cross-referenced, paraphrased and specifically engineered to obfuscate their intended purpose. This is designed to hide their true intentions, not to make them clear.

Furthermore, if the bill actually intended to protect Americans from the NDAA, then it shouldhave contained language saying something like, "American citizens are specifically excludedfrom all the provisions of this bill, in its entirety."

I'll bet anyone a thousand dollars they won't find language like that in the bill. Because it doesn't exist! And the reason it doesn't exist is because the NDAA is clearly intended to applyto American citizens.

The writers of the bill have managed to fool a lot of everyday people who seem unable toparse language and read plain English with any depth of understanding. That is as much afailure of America's public education system as anything else. I find it astonishing that today'scitizens can't even read and understand the grammatical structure of sentences written in

plain English. This alone is a highly disturbing subject that must be addressed another day.For now, it's enough just to realize that the NDAA really does apply to you, me, and all our neighbors and friends. In signing it, Obama has cemented his place in history as the enabler of government-sponsored mass murder of its own citizens.

History does repeat itself after all, huh? Hitler, Stalin, Mao and now "Obama the enabler."While Obama himself probably won't engage in the mass murder of American citizens yet,have no illusions that a future President will try to use the powers enacted by Obama to carryout such crimes.

4


5/14

White House Demands Military Prisons forAmericans Under NDAA

September 18 th 2012

The White House has asked the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals to place an emergencystay on a ruling made last week by a federal judge so that the presidents power to indefinitelydetain Americans without charge is reaffirmed immediately.

On Wednesday, September 12, US District Court Judge Katherine Forrest made permanent atemporary injunction she issued in May that bars the federal government from abiding by theindefinite detention provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012,or NDAA. Judge Forrest ruled that a clause that gives the government the power to arrest UScitizens suspected of maintaining alliances with terrorists and hold them without due processviolated the Constitution and that the White House would be stripped of that abilityimmediately.

Only hours after Judge Forrest issued last weeks ruling, the Obama administrationthreatened to appeal the decision, and on Monday morning they followed through.At around 9 a.m. Monday, September 17, the White House filed an emergency stay in federal

appeals court in an effort to have the Second Circuit strip away Judge Forrests ruling fromthe week earlier.

Almost immediately after Judge Forrest ruled, the Obama administration challenged thedecision, writes Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist that is listed as the leadplaintiff in the case. According to Hedges, the government called Judge Forrests most recentruling an extraordinary injunction of worldwide scope, and Executive Branch attorneysworked into the weekend to find a way to file their stay.

The Justice Department sent a letter to Forrest and the Second Circuit late Friday night informing them that at 9 a.m. Monday the Obama administration would ask the Second Circuit

for an emergency stay that would lift Forrests injunction, Hedges writes. This would allow Obama to continue to operate with indefinite detention authority until a formal appeal washeard. The governments decision has triggered a constitutional showdown between the

president and the judiciary.

5
http://rt.com/usa/news/us-court-law-unconstitutional-031/http://rt.com/usa/news/ndaa-appeal-mayer-forrest-161/http://rt.com/usa/news/us-court-law-unconstitutional-031/http://rt.com/usa/news/ndaa-appeal-mayer-forrest-161/


6/14

Attorney Carl Mayer, a counsel for Hedges and his co-plaintiffs, confirmed to RT early Mondaythat the stay was in fact filed with the Second Circuit.

This may be the most significant constitutional standoff since the Pentagon Papers case, Carl Mayer says in a separate statement posted on Mr. Hedges blog.

Bruce Afran, who serves as co-lead counsel along with Mayer, tells Hedges that the WhiteHouse could be waging a war against the injunction to ensure that the Obama administrationhas ample time to turn the NDAA against any protesters participating in domesticdemonstrations.

A Department of Homeland Security bulletin was issued Friday claiming that the riots [in theMiddle East] are likely to come to the US and saying that DHS is looking for the Islamic leaders of these likely riots, Afran tells Hedges. It is my view that this is why thegovernment wants to reopen the NDAA so it has a tool to round up would-be Islamic

protesters before they can launch any protest, violent or otherwise. Right now there are nolegal tools to arrest would-be protesters. The NDAA would give the government such power.Since the request to vacate the injunction only comes about on the day of the riots, and following the DHS bulletin, it seems to me that the two are connected. The government wantsto reopen the NDAA injunction so that they can use it to block protests.

Hedges, who has previously reported for papers including the New York Times and theChristian Science Monitor, argued that his job as a journalist requires him to routinely interactand converse with persons that may be considered terrorists in the eyes of the USgovernment.

Under the NDAA, Americans who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, theTaliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or itscoalition partners" can be held in prison cells until the end of hostilities, vague verbiage thatessentially allows for those suspect of such associations to be decided under the discretionof US President Barack Obama or any federal agent underneath him.

Because the language is so vague in this law, Mr. Mayer explains to RT, if any journalist or activist is seen as reporting or offering opinions about groups that could somehow be linked not just to al-Qaeda but to any opponent of the United States or even opponents of our allies I spent many years in countries where the military had the power to arrest and detain citizenswithout charge, Hedges wrote when he first filed his suit in January. I have been in some of these jails. I have friends and colleagues who have disappeared into military gulags. I know the consequences of granting sweeping and unrestricted policing power to the armed forcesof any nation. And while my battle may be quixotic, it is one that has to be fought if we are tohave any hope of pulling this country back from corporate fascism.

Monday morning, Hedges once more responded to the White Houses relentless attempts toreauthorize powers granted under the NDAA, asking, If the administration is this anxious torestore this section of the NDAA, is it because the Obama government has already used it? Or does it have plans to use the section in the immediate future?

The decision to vigorously fight Forrests ruling is a further example of the Obama WhiteHouses steady and relentless assault against civil liberties, an assault that is more severethan that carried out by George W. Bush, writes Hedges. Obama has refused to restorehabeas corpus. He supports the FISA Amendment Act, which retroactively makes legal what under our Constitution has traditionally been illegal warrantless wire tapping, eavesdropping

6


7/14

and monitoring directed against US citizens. He has used the Espionage Act six times against whistle-blowers who have exposed government crimes, including war crimes, to the public.He interprets the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act as giving him the authority toassassinate US citizens, as he did the cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. And now he wants the right touse the armed forces to throw U.S. citizens into military prisons, where they will have no right to a trial and no defined length of detention.

In his latest blog post, Hedges acknowledges, The government has now lost four times in alitigation that has gone on almost nine months.

Additional Articles:

White House continues fight to indefinitely detain Americans without charge under NDAA

NDAA on trial: White House refuses to abide with ban against indefinite detention of Americans

Obama fights ban on indefinite detention of Americans

Obama wins right to indefinitely detainAmericans under NDAA

September 18 th 2012

A lone appeals judge bowed down to the Obama administration late Monday and reauthorizedthe White Houses ability to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or dueprocess.

7
http://rt.com/usa/news/ndaa-appeal-mayer-forrest-161/http://rt.com/usa/news/ndaa-injunction-tangerine-detention-376/http://rt.com/usa/news/ndaa-injunction-tangerine-detention-376/http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-indefinite-detention-forrest-070/http://rt.com/usa/news/ndaa-appeal-mayer-forrest-161/http://rt.com/usa/news/ndaa-injunction-tangerine-detention-376/http://rt.com/usa/news/ndaa-injunction-tangerine-detention-376/http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-indefinite-detention-forrest-070/


8/14

Last week, a federal judge ruled that an temporary injunction on section 1021 of the NationalDefense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 must be made permanent, essentially barringthe White House from ever enforcing a clause in the NDAA that can let them put any US citizenbehind bars indefinitely over mere allegations of terrorist associations. On Monday, the USJustice Department asked for an emergency stay on that order, and hours later US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Judge Raymond Lohier agreed to intervene and place a holdon the injunction.

The stay will remain in effect until at least September 28, when a three-judge appeals courtpanel is expected to begin addressing the issue.

On December 31, 2011, US President Barack Obama signed the NDAA into law, even thoughhe insisted on accompanying that authorization with a statement explaining his hesitance toessentially eliminate habeas corpus for the American people.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it, President Obama wrote . In particular, I have signed this bill despite having seriousreservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and

prosecution of suspected terrorists.

A lawsuit against the administration was filed shortly thereafter on behalf of Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges and others, and Judge Forrest agreed with them in districtcourt last week after months of debate. With the stay issued on Monday night, however, that

justices decision has been destroyed.

With only Judge Lohiers single ruling on Monday, the federal government has been onceagain granted the go ahead to imprison any person "who was 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" until a poorly defined deadline described as merelythe end of the hostilities. The ruling comes despite Judge Forrest's earlier decision that theNDAA fails to pass constitutional muster and that the legislation contained elements thathad a "chilling impact on First Amendment rights

Because alleged terrorists are so broadly defined as to include anyone with simpleassociations with enemy forces, some members of the press have feared that simply speakingwith adversaries of the state can land them behind bars.

"First Amendment rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be legislated away," Judge Forrest wrote last week. "This Court rejects the Government's suggestion that

American citizens can be placed in military detention indefinitely, for acts they could not predict might subject them to detention."

Bruce Afran, a co-counsel representing the plaintiffs in the case Hedges v Obama , saidMonday that he suspects the White House has been relentless in this case because they arealready employing the NDAA to imprison Americans, or plan to shortly.

A Department of Homeland Security bulletin was issued Friday claiming that the riots [in theMiddle East] are likely to come to the US and saying that DHS is looking for the Islamic leaders of these likely riots, Afran told Hedges for a blogpost published this week . It is my view that this is why the government wants to reopen the NDAA so it has a tool to round upwould-be Islamic protesters before they can launch any protest, violent or otherwise. Right now there are no legal tools to arrest would-be protesters.

8
http://rt.com/usa/news/us-court-law-unconstitutional-031/http://rt.com/usa/news/ndaa-hedges-appeal-obama-339/http://rt.com/usa/news/ndaa-hedges-appeal-obama-339/http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-detention-ndaa-aclu-303/http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-detention-ndaa-aclu-303/http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-hedges-ndaa-sued-933/http://rt.com/usa/news/us-court-law-unconstitutional-031/http://rt.com/usa/news/us-court-law-unconstitutional-031/http://rt.com/usa/news/ndaa-hedges-appeal-obama-339/http://rt.com/usa/news/us-court-law-unconstitutional-031/http://rt.com/usa/news/ndaa-hedges-appeal-obama-339/http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-detention-ndaa-aclu-303/http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-hedges-ndaa-sued-933/http://rt.com/usa/news/us-court-law-unconstitutional-031/http://rt.com/usa/news/ndaa-hedges-appeal-obama-339/


9/14

The NDAA would give the government such power. Since the request to vacate the injunctiononly comes about on the day of the riots, and following the DHS bulletin, it seems to me that the two are connected. The government wants to reopen the NDAA injunction so that they canuse it to block protests.

Within only hours of Afrans statement being made public, demonstrators in New York Citywaged a day of protests in order to commemorate the one-year anniversary of the OccupyWall Street movement. Although it is not believed that the NDAA was used to justify anyarrests, more than 180 political protesters were detained by the NYPD over the course of thedays actions. One week earlier, the results of a Freedom of Information Act request filed bythe American Civil Liberties Union confirmed that the FBI has been monitoring Occupyprotests in at least one instance, but the bureau would not give further details, citing thatdecision is "in the interest of national defense or foreign policy."

Josh Gerstein, a reporter with Politico, reported on the stay late Monday and acknowledgedthat both Forrest and Lohier were appointed to the court by President Obama.

The Medias NDAA ProblemOctober 31 st 2012

By Tim Brown

Ben Swann talks about the problem of the media not holding President Obama accountablefor his words and actions on the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act).

Swann points out the Barack Obama said that he would veto the bill if Section 1021 was left inthe bill, which is the part of the bill that allowed for the indefinite detention of anyone,including American citizens, that the government deemed to be a terrorist. This indefinitedetention would eliminate their Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights protected under theConstitution. Remember this is just for being accused or suspected of involvement withterrorism, not actually being a terrorist.

Obama signed it into law on New Years Eve.

Remember, he did issue a signing statement that said he would never use that power. We allbelieve that, right? Thats what I thought.

Senator Carl Levin then spoke from the Senate floor and declared that Obama was not againstSection 102, but it was his administration that demanded the power of indefinite detention.In fact, Levin says the administration was clear and demanded that the language regardingU.S. citizens be removed from the section prior to its being signed into law.

Journalists then came forward and sued the Obama administration over the indefinitedetention provision claiming that the could not do this under the Constitution .

The judge asked if the Obama administration was, in fact, using that power currently but theattorneys and the administration refused to answer . Thats right the Obama administrationwould not come out and say that they were or were not using the power of indefinite detentionnow, which we all know indicates that they are using it.

9
http://reason.com/blog/2012/01/04/obama-promises-not-to-use-military-detenhttp://freedomoutpost.com/?p=3752http://freedomoutpost.com/?p=3752http://freedomoutpost.com/?p=3752http://freedomoutpost.com/?p=3752http://www.democracynow.org/2012/1/17/journalist_chris_hedges_sues_obama_adminhttp://www.democracynow.org/2012/1/17/journalist_chris_hedges_sues_obama_adminhttp://www.democracynow.org/2012/1/17/journalist_chris_hedges_sues_obama_adminhttp://freedomoutpost.com/2012/09/us-judge-strikes-down-ndaas-indefinite-detention/http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/09/us-judge-strikes-down-ndaas-indefinite-detention/http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/09/us-judge-strikes-down-ndaas-indefinite-detention/http://reason.com/blog/2012/01/04/obama-promises-not-to-use-military-detenhttp://freedomoutpost.com/?p=3752http://freedomoutpost.com/?p=3752http://freedomoutpost.com/?p=3752http://www.democracynow.org/2012/1/17/journalist_chris_hedges_sues_obama_adminhttp://www.democracynow.org/2012/1/17/journalist_chris_hedges_sues_obama_adminhttp://freedomoutpost.com/2012/09/us-judge-strikes-down-ndaas-indefinite-detention/http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/09/us-judge-strikes-down-ndaas-indefinite-detention/


10/14

Where are we in our society when freedom of the press results in the press being too scaredor even knowingly complicit in what is taking place in the undermining of the Constitution?

Judge Katherine Forrest struck down Section 1021 as unconstitutional . This would seem to beexactly what Obama claimed that he wanted, right? He said he would have vetoed the bill withthat power in it, and then signed it into law. In fact, he knew at some point a judge would rule itunconstitutional. When he signed it, he said he would never use it, so this shouldnt be aproblem. Well, it was.

Within twenty-four hours, Obama attorneys were petitioning New York federal judge RaymondLohier to overturn Forrests ruling, which he did.

So Swann points out that the medias problem on this is not that Obama signed such a billinto law, but its that he says one thing, but demonstrates he will do quite the opposite.However, he is not alone in his support of the NDAA, including indefinite detention.

Ben Swann and the Media's NDAA Problemhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1Kf_0mEoYU&feature=player_embedded

Ben Swann talks about the problem of the media not holding President Obamaaccountable for his words and actions on the NDAA.

Does Section 1029 Of The NDAA GuaranteeAmericans Their Constitutional Rights To

Trial?December 31 st 2012

By Tim Brown

Well, its been one year to the day when Barack Hussein Obama signed into law the 2012National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and its assumed he will sign the new 2013 versionof the NDAA sometime today, keeping the signing under the radar as he did last year. Thequestions surrounding this years NDAA has been over whether or not proposed amendments

10
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/09/us-judge-strikes-down-ndaas-indefinite-detention/http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/09/us-judge-strikes-down-ndaas-indefinite-detention/http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/09/us-judge-strikes-down-ndaas-indefinite-detention/http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/08/mitt-romney-would-have-signed-ndaa-as-written/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1Kf_0mEoYU&feature=player_embeddedhttp://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/does-section-1029-of-the-ndaa-guarantee-americans-their-constitutional-rights-to-trial/http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/09/us-judge-strikes-down-ndaas-indefinite-detention/http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/08/mitt-romney-would-have-signed-ndaa-as-written/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1Kf_0mEoYU&feature=player_embedded


11/14

to it would, in fact, provide protections for Americans under the Constitution, guaranteeingthem their Sixth Amendment rights.

While I told you about the Feinstein Amendment here and here, but the reality is that theFeinstein amendment was dropped from the 2012 NDAA.

But wasnt there another provision in the NDAA that guarantees an Americans right to trial isupheld? Well, there is Section 1029, which is referred to as the Gohmert Amendment. Theamendment was written by Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX). The amendment has claimedto protect the rights of U.S. citizens if they are arrested and suspected of terrorism. Here is thetext of Section 1029 of the 2013 NDAA :

Nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force or the National Defense AuthorizationAct for Fiscal Year 2012 shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeascorpus or to deny any Constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution for any person who is lawfully in the United States when detainedpursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force and who is otherwise entitled to theavailability of such writ or such rights.

It sounds like it is guaranteeing to protect American citizens rights, doesnt it? I mean itspretty straight forward. But is it?

According to Dan Johnson, with PANDA (People Against the NDAA) the problem is in thelanguage, particularly the guarantee to a trial in an Article III court. He writes:

The Gohmert Amendment only says that if you get a trial in an Article III court that you wontbe denied your constitutional rights in that court, but theres no guarantee that you get anytrial, let alone one in an Article III court. This language is deceptive in that it implies Congresscan pick and choose who gets Constitutional Rights. It also does not recognize or protect theConstitutional Rights of U.S. citizens travelling abroad.

In other words, Section 1029 does nothing to protect your right to a trial in an Article III court.In fact, lawmakers have declared that America is a battlefield. This means that anyonedetained under the 2001 (You read that right, thats George W. Bush) Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which was strengthened further by the 2012 NDAA, would be subject toa military trial, not a trial in an Article III court.

Johnson goes on affirm this stating that Anyone detained under the 2001 AUMF as modifiedby the 2012 NDAA is subject to the laws of war.

My friends you need to understand that this applies based simply on the suspicion of beinga terrorist or being involved with terrorists by either the President or anyone under hiscommand! This means they would not get the Article III court, but rather would be subject toan Article I court, or we commonly refer to them as a Military Tribunal or a Courts-Martial.

Dan Johnson goes further to explain that The 2009 Military Commissions Act gave militarycommissions/tribunals (also know as courts-martial) the statutory authority to choosewhether or not they had jurisdiction. In laymens terms, that means a Military commission (anArticle I Court) can decide themselves whether or not they will take jurisdiction over casesinvolving AUMF/NDAA covered persons.

11
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/feinsteins-indefinite-detention-amendment-may-actually-expand-executive-power/http://freedomoutpost.com/?p=4898http://freedomoutpost.com/?p=4898http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/12/conference-committee-drops-ban-on-indefinite-detention-152352.htmlhttp://freedomoutpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/ndaa.pdfhttp://pandaunite.org/http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/feinsteins-indefinite-detention-amendment-may-actually-expand-executive-power/http://freedomoutpost.com/?p=4898http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/12/conference-committee-drops-ban-on-indefinite-detention-152352.htmlhttp://freedomoutpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/ndaa.pdfhttp://pandaunite.org/


12/14

So while the language of the Gohmert amendment sounds good, it does absolutely nothing toguarantee you a trial in an Article III court. You can still be indefinitely detained based on theWhite House saying you are a terrorist. Additionally, if you do get a trial, it may be in a militarytribunal and not a civilian court of law. However, should you actually get into an Article IIIcourt, then your rights would be honored.unless otherwise entitled.

All this comes down to those final two words, otherwise entitled. The statement is basicallysaying that you are not otherwise entitled even though the Constitution says you are. Under both Bush and Obama, if they deemed you a terrorist, you had no right to a trial, because intheir words, you are an enemy combatant. If you dont believe that our representatives thinkthe same thing, listen to Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) as he was interviewed and askedabout his statement Shut up! You dont get a lawyer! Hear him state these exact words.Dont forget while you are celebrating tonight that Obama just may be doing some celebratingof his own by signing this unconstitutional, tyrannical bill into law, further endangering youand me and our children.

12
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/03/lindsey-graham-shut-up-you-dont-get-a-lawyer/http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/03/lindsey-graham-shut-up-you-dont-get-a-lawyer/http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/03/lindsey-graham-shut-up-you-dont-get-a-lawyer/http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/03/lindsey-graham-shut-up-you-dont-get-a-lawyer/


13/14

National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Of 2013 Still A Threat To Liberty

December 31 st 2012

This measure has a chilling impact on First Amendment Rights, states Federal DistrictJudge Katherine Forrest according to a flyer being distributed by the New Citizens Initiative torepeal the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). People Against the NDAA

(PandaUNITE.org ) is gearing up for a nationwide fight in 2013 to nullify this very controversialact that uses national security as window dressing to take away six freedoms guaranteed toall citizens in our Constitutions Bill of Rights! PANDA warns that the following six Bill of Rights amendments are being violated: First Amendment: Free Speech; Second Amendment:Right to Bear Arms: Fourth Amendment: Unlawful Search and Seizure; Fifth Amendment: DueProcess; Sixth Amendment: Speedy and Public Trial; and Eighth Amendment: Cruel andUnusual Punishment.

Dangers of the NDAA signed into federal law on December 31, 2011 include: 1. Arrest andindefinite detainment powers given to the President based on his mere allegation that youare a threat or terrorist; 2. Right to legal representationeven so much as a to call your attorney or a family member is denied; 3. American citizens and legal permanentresidents can be held for life without being convicted of a crime; 4. The right to trial by juryof your peers is taken away; 5. You can literally be executed without being convicted of acrime.

At a recent informational meeting held in Florida, speakers detailed lost freedoms whichinclude no longer being permitted to speak out against the federal government; the

discussion of anything which may be deemed an extreme view; and speaking in favor of what some NDAA advocates call our national symbols and unacceptable attire or languageat protest gatherings. Remember the seven Hutaree militia members in Michigan who werearrested and charged? Even though they eventually were acquitted, the trial sent a chillthrough Left and Right wing circles across America.

Aims of the citizens initiative are threefold : 1. Nonviolent nullification or repeal of theindefinite detention sections of the NDAA; 2. An end to laws that trade our liberty for nationalsecurity; and 3. Engaging a younger generation in American politics so this can never happen again.

13
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/US/judge-blocks-controversial-indefinite-detention-law.html?_r=Ohttps://pandaunite.org/http://wisupnorth.com/2012/03/michigan-militia-members-acquitted/http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/US/judge-blocks-controversial-indefinite-detention-law.html?_r=Ohttps://pandaunite.org/http://wisupnorth.com/2012/03/michigan-militia-members-acquitted/


14/14

Nothing that happens in Washington will be fixed there, so its time to stop fixating onthem. The commenter who made this observation believes local resistance must rise up andindeed, Utah is led the charge by introducing legislation on December 19, 2012 to deal with theNDAA. Another person comments : Wake up America; were losing our rights and theyredoing it behind Americans backfreedoms are being slowly taken awayand theyre doing itwith deception and disrespect to all that served. Its a disgrace!

The annual National Defense Authorization Acts signed by Obama is indeed a disgrace andthe upcoming amended 2013 version promises to be no better. The amended version whichwould have limited Obamas powers of unconstitutional incarceration was defeated in theHouse. It appears that the continued liberty of the American people will depend upon thecourage of individual state legislators and governors.

14
https://pandaunite.org/https://pandaunite.org/

NDAA Does Apply to Americans.doc

Documents

Transcript of NDAA Does Apply to Americans.doc