Tell Congress To Undo The NDAA, Ban Indefinite Military Detention Of Americans

by on January 5, 2012 · 17 comments

in American Empire, Civil Rights, Popular

President Obama just signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law on December 31, 2011, despite startling provisions that will allow the military to indefinitely detain American citizens. It’s a travesty, defying basic principles of justice and due process in perhaps the most extreme respect our nation has ever seen.

Thankfully, several lawmakers are keeping up the fight. Senator Dianne Feinstein has introduced legislation to undo these provisions of the NDAA, in the form of the Due Process Guarantee Act. We need to urge other Senators to support it.

The Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011 amends the Non-Detention Act of 1971 by providing that a Congressional authorization for the use of military force does not authorize the indefinite detention—without charge or trial—of U.S. citizens who are apprehended domestically.

If there’s enough of a public outcry, we have a real chance of making this happen: More than 40 senators voted against the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA — and that was before the media and general public caught on to what was happening. Please urge your Senators to remedy this terrible wrong.  Also, when the bill came up before the House of Representatives, half of the Democrats voted against it.

Just fill out the form found here at this website at Demand Progress to urge your lawmakers to block the indefinite detention of Americans

Here’s Feinstein’s press release  on her new legislation.

Here’s the letter to the Senators that you are sending by signing the petition:

The indefinite detention of American citizens as made legal by the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act is a travesty of justice and an extraordinary violation of important civil rights enshrined in our constitution.

 I urge you to remedy this by supporting and cosponsoring Senator Dianne Feinstein’s Due Process Guarantee Act.

{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }

avatar John Klein January 5, 2012 at 1:19 pm

Great article as to how to take action. Thanks!

For anyone interested, these are the specific bills associated with the Due Process Guarantee Act 2011:

Senate bill S.2003 – Due Process Guarantee Act 2011 http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s2003/show
House bill H.R.3702 – Due Process Guarantee Act 2011 http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3702/show

We can help eliminate indefinite detention and restore due process for U.S. citizens by contacting our representatives and urging them to support these bills.

Reply

avatar Joseph Monroe January 5, 2012 at 2:56 pm

They will use this law to keep protesters behind bars when the nation finally has had enough and revolts.

Reply

avatar MIke January 5, 2012 at 3:17 pm

Good Job Obama! NOT.
I thought he was supposed to be better than Bush?? WHat’s the difference??
All politicians are the same. He is just another politician NOTHING MORE.

Reply

avatar Bill Anderson January 5, 2012 at 3:48 pm

To read about what police and FBI could get away with before this law was passed, please search for ” New police weapon against homeless” on homeless forums. A Masters degree is no protection against those in power determined to take away your rights. Bill Anderson

Reply

avatar Felipe January 5, 2012 at 4:59 pm

Obama has created the beginning of the police state. I plan on voting for anyone who follows the constitution, not shred it.

Reply

avatar Frank Gormlie January 5, 2012 at 5:03 pm

Okay, name one.

Reply

avatar John January 5, 2012 at 8:15 pm

Lol Frank. A very simple question that has no answer.

Reply

avatar editordude January 6, 2012 at 8:06 am

Several people wrote in and simply said: “Ron Paul.” But as we can see from his history, his racist and sexist policies and statements, in his mind, he has already shredded the Constitution.

Reply

avatar John January 6, 2012 at 8:12 pm

He’s a Constitutionalist. I don’t think you know what you are talking about. God something specific-share it, thanks

Reply

avatar Goatskull January 5, 2012 at 9:52 pm

Not following the constitution pretty much covers everyone who chooses holding a public office as a career choice.

Reply

avatar Rickie Carter January 5, 2012 at 7:47 pm

I just want the link for the actual bill. The text I read excluded citizens.
I have that link here http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s112-1867
But if anyone can send me text of the bill your talking about I’m with you all the way!

Reply

avatar BantheScan January 5, 2012 at 9:08 pm

Spread the word! Nationwide NDAA 2012 Congressional Protest is Feb. 3rd.
http://www.facebook.com/events/335643799778967/

Reply

avatar Goatskull January 5, 2012 at 9:55 pm

Honestly, don’t know what I’m going to do in November. I WILL get out and vote but I’m almost thinking of skipping over the actual president part. I’m just at a loss.

Reply

avatar mothra January 6, 2012 at 2:51 am

Feinstein already offered this amendment after the NDAA vote – it didn’t pass. If they’d wanted a US citizen exclusion, Obama wouldn’t have requested it expressly be taken out of the original bill before agreeing to sign it.

It appears to be political cover for those in more insecure re-election districts who voted Aye. It didn’t ‘t pass, it won’t pass and the administration said they wouldn’t sign.

Why should we beg and petition to have our civil liberties restored in a puppet show? Recall/impeach/prosecute now before a millennial version of Nuremburg trials do it for us in a decade to our eternal shame as a nation. Ask Germany.

Reply

avatar RB January 6, 2012 at 9:56 am

This is issue will be resolved by the Supreme Court, not by Congress and not by the President. IMO, not since Richard Nixon has a President ignored so routinely the law and Constitution.

Reply

avatar Son of the Republic January 8, 2012 at 1:26 pm

What means this martial array but to intimidate the American People into submission?
Our chains have already been forged.

WE THE PEOPLE must establish new Guards for our future security.
If this petition fails, we must not give up.
We will have to abolish this government by popular will.
We will have to establish a new government.
We will ensure that the traitors answer for this crime. This is treason.
There is no retreat but in submission and slavery.
I pledge my life, my fortune and my sacred honor to the contest.

Reply

avatar Rwolf January 9, 2012 at 10:06 pm

Re: Multi-State Recall Petitions of Congressman that voted for (NDAA)
The National Defense Authorization ACT of 2012

Some observers believe NDAA included the vague term “Belligerent” in the manner it did, so U.S. Government would have authority granted by Congress to Indefinitely Detain large numbers of Americans not involved in terrorism. Under NDAA, U.S. Government can deem anyone a “Belligerent” for indefinite detention. The term “Belligerent” is so Expansive and Vague an American Citizen could be labeled a “Belligerent” for exercising First Amendment Rights—speaking out for or against any issue; protesting a U.S. Government Policy; agency or coalition Partner. It is foreseeable U.S. Government will threaten Americans with Indefinite Detention that refuse to act as informants.

The passed (Defense Authorization Act of 2012) appears more threatening to Americans than (Hitler’s FASCIST 1933 Discriminatory LAWS) that suspended provisions in the Reich Constitution that Protected German Citizens’ Civil Liberties? For example—Note below that Hitler’s 1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS (stated time limits) German Citizens could be incarcerated for e.g., Serious Disturbance of the Peace, Provoking Public Unrest, Rioting; Acts that threatened National Security. In contrast Senators John McCain and Carl Levin’s National Defense Authorization Act of 2012—mandates holding Americans’ (Indefinitely) in Military Custody for being a mere “Belligerent.”

Under the passed National Defense Authorization, could some Americans be (Retroactively) subject to Indefinite U.S. Military or Prison Detention without charges or right to an attorney or trial? Consider that most American activists don’t know what other activists and groups they networked or associated did in the past—perhaps illegal. Both the National Authorization Act of 2012 and USA Patriot Act are expansive and vague—what constitutes (1) a terrorist act, (2) supporting or aiding terrorists; (3) when someone is a “Combatant” or (4) “a Belligerent.” For example, Americans advocating, attending or supporting a meeting or protest demonstration against a U.S. Government Agency; Policy or U.S. Military Action—could be charged with (1) (2) (3) and (4) under NDAA and the Patriot Act.
History Repeats Itself: When other countries passed Police State Laws like The Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Citizens increasingly abstained from politically speaking out; visiting activist websites or writing comments that might be deemed inappropriate by the Police State Government, e.g. cause someone to lose their job; be investigated; disappeared, and or detained in Police/Military Custody. Some writers might be dead-meat under NDAA. It appears that “Americans” who write on the Internet or verbally express an opinion against any entity of U.S. Government or its coalition partners—may under the Patriot Act or The Defense Authorization Act—be deemed by U.S. Government (someone likely to engage in, support or provoke violent acts or threaten National Security—to order an American writer’s indefinite military or prison detention.

Is NDAA Retroactive? Can U.S. Government invoke provisions of NDAA or the Patriot Act to assert a U.S. Citizen’s past or current writings (protected by the 1st Amendment) have supported or aided terrorists; provoked combatants or belligerents as a premise to order an author’s Indefinite Detention? The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 did more than Chill Free Speech—it may FREEZE IT!
It should be expected that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings when interrogated or allowed legal counsel; will also be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite Detention. See below: Hitler’s 1933 Fascist Laws that might appear mild in several respects when set side by side with the National Authorization Act of 2012.
1933. ROBL. I 83.

GERMANY Preliminary Compilation of Selected Laws, Decrees, and Regulations:
DISCRIMINATORY LAWS:

DECREE OF THE REICH PRESIDENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE AND STATE

Note: Based on translations by State Department, National Socialism, 1942 PP. 215-17, and Pollak, J.K., and Heneman, H.J., The Hitler Decrees, (1934), pp. 10-11.7

In virtue of Section 48 (2) of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against Communist acts of Violence, endangering the state:

Section 1
Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.
Section 2
If in a state the measures necessary for the restoration of public security and order are not taken, the Reich Government may temporarily take over the powers of the highest state authority.
Section 4
Whoever provokes, or appeals for or incites to the disobedience of the orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities subject to then for the execution of this decree, or the orders given by the Reich Government according to Section 2, is punishable—insofar as the deed, is not covered by the decree with more severe punishment and with imprisonment of not less that one month, or with a fine from 150 up to 15,000 Reich marks.
Who ever endangers human life by violating Section 1, is to be punished by sentence to a penitentiary, under mitigating circumstances with imprisonment of not less than six months and, when violation causes the death of a person, with death, under mitigating circumstances with a penitentiary sentence of not less that two years. In addition the sentence my include confiscation of property.
Whoever provokes an inciter to or act contrary to public welfare is to be punished with a penitentiary sentence, under mitigating circumstances, with imprisonment of not less than three months.
Section 5
The crimes which under the Criminal Code are punishable with penitentiary for life are to be punished with death: i.e., in Sections 81 (high treason), 229 (poisoning), 306 (arson), 311 (explosion), 312 (floods), 315, paragraph 2 (damage to railroad properties, 324 (general poisoning).
Insofar as a more severe punishment has not been previously provided for, the following are punishable with death or with life imprisonment or with imprisonment not to exceed 15 years:
1. Anyone who undertakes to kill the Reich President or a member or a commissioner of the Reich Government or of a state government, or provokes to such a killing, or agrees to commit it, or accepts such an offer, or conspires with another for such a murder;
2. Anyone who under Section 115 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious rioting) or of Section 125 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious disturbance of the peace) commits the act with arms or cooperates consciously and intentionally with an armed person;
3. Anyone who commits a kidnapping under Section 239 of the Criminal with the intention of making use of the kidnapped person as a hostage in the political struggle.
Section 6
This decree enters in force on the day of its promulgation.
Reich President
Reich Chancellor
Reich Minister of the Interior Reich Minister of Justice

Reply

Leave a Comment


2 + = 11

Older Article:

Newer Article: