by Scott Creighton
There has been a great deal of debate these last few days as to whether or not NDAA 2012 (pdf) actually mandates the use of the U.S. military in policing actions here on U.S. soil, in direct contradiction to Posse Comitatus. Republican, Liberal, "Progressive", and Libertarian websites are lit up over this issue and yet most of them are saying the exact same thing. Ironically, they are all saying the same thing that the Obama administration is saying and that is that NDAA 2012 needs to be changed. Obama has threatened to VETO it (can you imaging the seated president VETOing the defense spending bill this close to an election?) because it will inhibit his ability to fight the Global War on Terror (aka The Global Free Market Wars).
How is it that so many "dissident" sites and organizations are taking the exact same position as the Obama administration, the first administration by the way who claims the authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad without due process of law and the same administration who has refused to prosecute the obvious war-crimes of the previous administration? Remember, there have been more whistle-blowers arrested under Obama's rule than any other administration in our history.
The fact is, that is what controlled opposition sites do. They are usually free to discuss a wide range of topics, using them to garner the trust of the reader, but when something really important comes along, they all line up on the same side and in this case, as is usually the case, that is the side of the corrupt administration.
So what is the end result and how do they intend to get there? Does the NDAA 2012 actually provide the needed congressional act to allow the president to use the military to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens or did someone write into it constitutional protections that the administration rejects? Is the famed Udall amendment there to save us or to help the president and his senior advisers get what they want in spite of the language of NDAA 2012? Are sites like David Swanson's and Prison Planet actually helping the Obama administration set in motion a congressional act which will grossly expand the powers of the unitary executive in spite of their best interests or because of them?
We will attempt to address these questions and explain how misdirection and left cover are being carefully crafted in this case to get opponents of totalitarian rule to openly call for it.
The desired end result
Barack Obama is not going to VETO this bill because it threatens to impede on the constitutional protections of U.S. citizens, as Ralph Lopez dishonestly implies over at David Swanson's website. Barack Obama is threatening to VETO the bill because this contentious section doesn't go far enough to provide him and his administration the ability to use the military to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens. He also rejects the idea that the current system of FBI and NYPD Intelligence Division task forces will be left out of the loop; restrained from doing what they do and that is produce thwarted "terrorist" plots out of loner hapless morons and the ever-present FBI or police "informants".
The best of both worlds, and apparently what the Mark Udall amendment provides for, is a system by which the administration can use the military to arrest and detain and TRY U.S. civilians in military tribunals where they can keep the so-called "evidence" against the suspect a state secret due to issues of "national security". That's especially important now because as we look at the last fake terrorist case drummed up by Michael Bloomberg and his Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, the case was so completely manufactured that the FBI and the Department of Justice wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. Were that case to have been under military jurisdiction, that wouldn't have happened and the likes of Bloomberg and Kelly would have been spared even further embarrassment like Keith Olbermann demanding their resignations for fabricating a terrorist plot against New York.
Take a look at the case of Jose Padilla. Here is a guy who was arrested in a similar situation, a case against him was fabricated by FBI informants, and he was held under the Bush regime as an "enemy combatant" for 3 and a half years without trial or even real access to a lawyer. He was kept in conditions that observers and military officials would later describe as torture.
Eventually the Second Circuit court determined:
"Declaring that without clear Congressional approval (per 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a)) President Bush cannot detain an American citizen arrested in the United States and away from a zone of combat as an "illegal enemy combatant", the court ordered that Padilla be released from the military brig within 30 days." Wiki
And they went further in their verdict:
"the President lacked inherent constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief to detain American citizens on American soil outside a zone of combat". … The extraordinary government power to curb civil rights and liberties during crisis periods, such as times of war, lies with Congress and not the President. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress, and not the President, the power to suspend the right of habeas corpus during a period of rebellion or invasion. Wiki
Padilla's case was transferred to a civilian court and he was convicted in a kangaroo court but the tragedy for the administration was that in civilian court the evidence is a matter of public record, and therefore it's weak and potentially criminal nature (entrapment) was there for all to see (which made future frame-ups more difficult)
Now we seem to have an attempt, an over reaching attempt, to set into law that very same constitutional action which will allow for the president and his administration to choose which court system is best to try which supposed "terrorists". They will use the civilian courts if the evidence can withstand the light of day and they will simply shift it over to military jurisdiction if not. This is apparently what the Obama administration wants and will VETO anything that doesn't provide for that end result.
How do they get there?
It is clear that the NDAA 2012 provides for redefining U.S. soil and the entire rest of the world as a part of the battle field in the Global War on Terror (a "combat zone" as explained above in the Padilla finding). Though it is overreaching and must be stricken from the bill, it is not the real point of contention (though I suggest it should be and wonder why so few "dissident" sites make that argument)
What is also clear (even though people like Mr. Anders of the ACLU and Mr. Watson of Prison Planet argue against it without providing any real facts to back them up) is that Carl Levin (a progressive democrat) is the ACTUAL author of the bill (not John McCain… look it up) and he deliberately put into the bill a clause which CLEARLY STATES that U.S. citizens are not included in the provision providing for military detention.
"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." section 1031 NDAA 2012 page 360
"The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States." section 1032 NDAA 2012 page 362
Both Anders and Watson have disingenuously argued that people should not be confused about the bill, even though the language is right there for all to read. They both claim that your lying eyes are deceiving you.
Watson claims that regardless of the language of the bill the big bad government will do whatever they want to anyway in spite of the law. This flies in the face of legal precedent set in the Padilla case and the subsequent issues with the drummed up "terrorist" cases ever since. If that is the case and the language of any law is really meaningless, then why argue this case at all? Obviously Watson is reaching.
Watson also goes a bit further in his backhanded support of totalitarian government when he makes the following statement: "The "battlefield" provision of the NDAA is nothing new, it is merely an updating of existing policy that has been applied to American citizens on numerous occasions over the last decade." That is absolutely untrue as I have shown with the Circuit Court finding in the Padilla case which is also supported by the fact that the Obama administration made a clear distinction between U.S. citizens abroad, off U.S. soil, and those here at home in his famous announcement that he can and will authorize the extra-judicial murder of citizens… ABROAD.. and not on U.S. soil.
Paul Joseph Watson could not be more mistaken about the aspect of this bill that declares that U.S. soil is part of the battlefield. That clause defines the battlefield and thus sets the stage for the Udall amendment which could make us all "enemy combatants" And like I said before, it is extremely curious that Paul Joseph Watson does that.
As for Mr. Anders, the ACLU related DC based mouth piece, I wrote earlier that it is very strange that he put out this dramatic call to action and yet he didn't link ONCE to either the NDAA 2012 nor the Udall amendment which he dishonestly suggests as a fix for the problem.
Anders has gone out of his way to convince people that it's the Udall amendment that we need to protect us. He actually lies to his readers and still provides not one single quote to prove his point except a quotation from Lindsey Graham who himself has proven time and time again that he will do whatever it takes to turn this country into an authoritarian dictatorship.
In an update to his original article, Mr. Anders has now addressed those of us who actually READ the documents (though he and the ACLU never replied to my emails asking them about this curious lack of documentation in Mr. Anders' work) and his response is even less accurate that his first article and again, he makes no effort to prove his argument with the text of either bill.
At first he claims that his readers shouldn't pay attention to those who raise questions about the actual language of NDAA 2012 simply because he says so, and then he goes on to misrepresent a passage of the questionable section of the bill without providing the text of it so his readers can decide for themselves. This of course is what he has done throughout the article.
Anders actually admits there is a clause that states that military detentions will not extend to citizens of the United States. He admits that.
"There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill)…" Mr. Anders ACLU
But then Anders goes on to say that it will not keep American citizens from being detained because the clause, the exemption for U.S. citizens, has to do with section 1032 not 1031 which authorizes the use of the military to detain people in the war on terror.
This is beyond dishonest.
Section 1032 defines military detention and who may or may not be detained pursuant to section 1031 which authorizes it. It couldn't be more clear and if Mr. Anders were to provide his readers with the link to the document, then most would see that (and obviously many like myself sought out the document ourselves)
In fact, Mark Udall's amendment SA1112 would actually add a line to section 1031 which states that the section would extend to U.S. citizens. How's that for obvious?
SA1112 – Udall amendment – "…The authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons under this section extends to citizens of the United States and lawful resident aliens of the United States…except to the extent prohibited by the Constitution of the United States"
Well the only thing in the constitution that keeps citizens from being detained by the military is the fact that it claims it would take an act of congress to allow such a thing to take place… and guess what Mark Udall's amendment is? So the extent to which it is prohibited by the constitution would be nullified by the act itself.
The Udall solution
Mark Udall has crafted two horrible amendments which the ACLU, David Swanson, Paul Joseph Watson, and various other shills are pushing as the way to "protect" our civil liberties. Udall himself explains why he is pressing his amendments by quoting the White House to start with…
"we have spent 10 years since September 11, 2001, breaking down the walls between intelligence, military and law enforcement professionals. Congress should not now rebuild those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult." Mark Udall quoting the White House position on NDAA 2012
"… these provisions disrupt the executive branch's capacity to enforce the law and impose unwise and unwarranted restrictions on our ability to aggressively combat international terrorism." Mark Udall
The Udall solution is to set aside section 1031 and 1032 and allow for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, the head of the NSA , the head of the Department of Homeland Security, and Leon Panetta (former CIA head and now Sec. of Defense) to get together and craft language that they think will better serve their "war on terror"
Does anyone think Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta are going to keep the part of the bill that exempts U.S. citizens from military detention? I don't. and I can't see how someone like Mr. Udall would, unless of course he is just doing his part to help provide a service for the globalists.
Unlike Mr. Anders and Mr. Watson, I wish to provide you the full text of the two controversial amendments offered by Mr. Udall. Take a look for yourself and see if you can understand what Udall and Anders are doing under the cloak of "left cover"
After reading these and the actual text of the NDAA 2012, after reading the dishonest arguments made for supporting the Obama administration's desire to rewrite NDAA 2012, it is my sincere hope that people come to understand what is actually happening here. What seems to have happened is that Mr. Levin did not want to be the one who handed over the United States to a military rule and the current administration is trying to expand on their unconstitutional powers by having those limits put in by Levin removed under cover. Whether or not people like Swanson, Watson, Anders and others are simply mistaken or whether they are deliberately misleading their readers is hard to say, however I think it's a lot easier to form an opinion on Anders.
In the end, Anders is left with nothing more than a quote from a war-monger supporting NDAA 2012 as his only "proof" that it does what he claims it does. Who do you think that war monger actually serves? Don't you think it is in his best interests to pretend to support the bill so that the other, more dangerous amendments are accepted? It's not hard to figure out… pretend to support something so that the left will rally against it. Right?
Either way we must not support the Udall solutions which will clearly pave the way to removing the restrictions Levin put into place and allow for the administration to dramatically expand the powers of their office to include the ability to arrest U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.
Below is the text of Udall amendment SA1112
SA 1112. Mr. UDALL of Colorado submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1867, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 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; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of section 1031, add the following:
(f) Extension to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens.–The authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons under this section extends to citizens of the United States and lawful resident aliens of the United States, except to the extent prohibited by the Constitution of the United States.
Below is the text of Udall amendment SA1107
(a) In General.–Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall, in consultation with appropriate officials in the Executive Office of the President, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Attorney General, submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report setting forth the following:
(1) A statement of the position of the Executive Branch on the appropriate role for the Armed Forces of the United States in the detention and prosecution of covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)).
(2) A statement and assessment of the legal authority asserted by the Executive Branch for such detention and prosecution.
(3) A statement of any existing deficiencies or anticipated deficiencies in the legal authority for such detention and prosecution.
(c) Congressional Action.–Each of the appropriate committees of Congress may, not later than 45 days after receipt of the report required by subsection (a), hold a hearing on the report, and shall, within 45 days of such hearings, report to Congress legislation, if such committee determines legislation is appropriate and advisable, modifying or expanding the authority of the Executive Branch to carry out detention and prosecution of covered persons.
for further reading and links to all of the legislation and amendments mentioned above, please check out previous articles listed below.
S. 1867 the Department of Defense Authorization Act: It's More Convoluted Than You Think
As Written Sections 1031 and 1032 of S. 1867 Do NOT Apply to U.S. Citizens
Udall Amendment SA 1112 To INCLUDE U.S. Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens in Military Detentions
