IPFS News Link • Police State
Overlooked Language In NDAA (HR 1540 & S 1867)
• www.rense.com/Devvy Kidd The Internet has been literally burning
up over the National Defense Authorization Act. Another monstrous bill
with language that has produced headlines like: "Obama is going to
ship Americans to Gitmo!!!" And, "Americans will be detained
indefinitely in secret without due process!!!!" There is this dire
prediction:
"The real danger lies in the government's definition
of what a suspected terrorist is.
"According to Sen Rand Paul (R-KY): "We're
talking about American citizens who can be taken from the United States
and sent to a camp at Guantanamo Bay and held indefinitely. There are laws
on the books right now that characterize who might be a terrorist: someone
missing fingers on their hands is a suspect, according to the Department
of Justice. Someone who has guns, someone who has ammunition that is weatherproofed,
someone who has more than seven days of food in their house can be considered
a potential terrorist. If you are suspected because of these activities,
do you want the government to have the ability to send you to Guantanamo
Bay for indefinite detention?"
"Paul says this is why he and twelve other senators
voted against the bill, because they saw the dangerous implications of
this provision which was designed to give the military certain powers during
the current conflict with al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations."
Not that the gangster administration under the usurper
(Obama/Soetoro/Dunham) wouldn't like to try something like that, but please
remember Obama/Soetoro does not occupy the White House as he was never
eligible to run for president; no one had the "right" to vote
for him. Anyone charged under any bill he has signed into law has the full
right to go after Obama. As a usurper, Barry has never had a shred of authority
to sign any legislation into law.[1]
As for the Department of Justice, the Outlaws in the
Congress have the clear authority to impeach Holder today and immediately
pass legislation to stop any attempt to round up Americans. With enough
votes they can override a veto by the fraud in the White House. They also
have the power to pass legislation immediately which nullifies any definitions
of a "suspected terrorist" put forth by the corrupt DOJ. Does
anyone get constitutional militia yet?
Moving on. The two objectionable sections are: 1031 and
1032 in the Senate bill. Like so many others, I read those sections. There
is a great deal of references to the Law of War. These united States of
America are not at war with anyone. The last legal war was declared constitutionally
by the U.S. Congress on Dec. 11, 1941. Since then, other names have been
used to justify ignoring the U.S. Constituion: the Korean Conflict, Viet
Nam Era. The illegal, grotesque invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and
other "hot spots" are referred to as "overseas contingency
operations". Tragically, the American people have sat on their backsides
cheering on the slaughter and carnage.
"According to Firedoglake.com, sections 1031 and
1032 of the NDAA will:
1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely
imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up
inside and outside the United States;
(2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who
would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked
up within the United States itself; and
(3) Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial,
investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility
now held by the Department of Justice.
"AddictingInfo.org adds:
A provision of S. 1867, or the National Defense Authorization
Act bill, written by Senators John McCain and Carl Levin, declares American
soil a battlefield and allows the President and all future Chief Executives
to order the military to arrest and detain American citizens, innocent
or not, without charge or trial. In other words, if this bill passes and
the President signs it, OWS protesters or any American could end up arrested
and indefinitely locked up by the military without the guaranteed right
to due process or a speedy trial."
Watch Streaming Broadcast Live:
LRN.fm
DLive
Live Chat
Telegram
Telegram
2 Comments in Response to Overlooked Language In NDAA (HR 1540 & S 1867)
This is not a law and anybody, from the President on down, who enforces it will be a criminal. According to the United States Supreme Court:
[1] _Marbury vs Madison_ "All laws which are repugnant to the
Constitution are null and void."
16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177 late 2nd, section
256: "No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no
courts are bound to enforce it. The general rule is that an
unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name
of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and
ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates
from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of
the decision so branding it."
The Bill that just passed and was signed in Washington, D. C. negates and is counter to the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, as well as other portions of the Constitution of the United States of America and is, therefore, null and void, no matter who votes for it or who signs it. Any person who promotes or defends this statute is an oath-breaker and a traitor to the United States Constitution and therefore unqualified to hold office.
The proposed law is very valuable to citizens and voters of the United States of America, since it will brand for all time those who are traitors to our nation, so that they can be removed from office.
Hats off to Devvy for giving me pause for thought. This is the kind of info. I'm looking for!