Court Finds Homeland Battlefield Act of NDAA to be Unconstitutional

by Scott Creighton

In a developing story, a U.S. District Judge, Katherine Forrest, has declared unconstitutional an extremely controversial part of the 2012 NDAA which declared that the entire world was part of the global battlefield in the still ongoing “Global War on Terror” which Barack Obama signed into law on Dec. 31st, 2011.

This is part of an ongoing lawsuit brought by Chris Hedges and other journalists and scholars who worried that the language of the Homeland Battlefield Act was purposefully vague and could ensnare journalists and activists in a military crackdown on terrorist organizations or those who support them (MeK anyone?) without them even knowing it was happening of that they were considered to be aiding the organizations simply by writing about them.

S. 1867 – And Now… For the Rest.. of the Story

by Scott Creighton

Note: Let it be known that I do not support these sections of S. 1867 as written.

I just think we need to consider the rest of the story before doing the bidding of Obama and the FBI.

The internets are abuzz with end-times prognostication on the meaning and menace of S. 1867 the National Defense Authorization Act 2012. Sooth-Sayers and belligerent bloggers from all sides are damning us to eternal detainment because section 1031 doesn’t go far enough to claim that U.S. citizens can’t be treated like those evil Canadian terrorists. Mike Adams claims the evil guberment has the right to murder OWS protesters in cold blood while that guy from the Oath Keepers (and YALE… wink wink wink) claims it’s time we started shooting people because the constitution is over (though he “HOPEs” it won’t come to that… wink wink wink)

But as several people have shown, myself included, though the language of the bill is unduly vague and getting vaguer by the minute, it hardly expands the claimed power of the unitary executive that much farther than already assumed by our Peace Prize “winning”, U.S. citizen murdering president of “CHANGE IS…”.

It certainly doesn’t provide for shooting little miss drum circle in the face with a riot gun. If Mr. Natural Ranger would like to debate me on that subject, my calender is pretty open.

So, just fucking relax. Take a breath, and let’s look at what the bill actually does and start to ask the very serious questions that must arise from such legislation such as “Why do these supposed “dissident” and “human rights” groups misrepresent this bill in such a way and whom do they really serve?”

That’s a good question. But let’s start with a review of the other things the bill actually does before we get to that. Let’s look at “the rest of the story”.

S. 1867 Passed in the Senate

by Scott Creighton

UPDATE: listed below are some of the breathless panic inducing hyperbole being yelled from the rooftops

——–

Late last night, S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 passed the senate vote and now moves onto be meshed with the House version, then back for a final vote on the combined bill. Then it goes to the president’s desk for final approval.

Neither of the Feinstein amendments that I had supported were included in the bill but Feinstein and Lindsey Graham put together a “compromise” amendment which served to garner enough bi-partisan support to get the military funding legislation passed through the senate.

Their compromise amendment dealt with the contentious “indefinite detention” section of the legislation, section 1031 as that there is already a disclaimer in section 1032 that states it does not mandate that US citizens are to be held in military detention under military jurisdiction.

The exact text of their “compromise” is hard to find, I am looking for it now, but over at HuffPuff they have an article which lists the following as the text without providing a link to the source. That is rather odd as I pointed out with the ACLU’s Mr. Anders article some days ago. Well, we all see why Mr. Anders didn’t provide links to the legislation in his article, it would not have supported his argument. My question about the HuffPuff piece is similar… why not provide the link to the source of the text of the amendment?

Curiously, Mr. Anders of the ACLU plays a role in the HuffPuff piece, being quoted multiple times saying the end is near and the legislation means that we are all going to have the Stazi kicking in our doors as soon as Obama signs it into law.

“This bill puts military detention authority on steroids and makes it permanent. If it becomes law, American citizens and others are at real risk of being locked away by the military without charge or trial.” Breathless Anders of the ACLU

I think that’s a bit melodramatic, but if you want to create a panic so that the legislation is rewritten allowing Hillary Clinton to write the final version, I guess you have to make such claims, regardless of the truth.

So while I look for the actual amendment “compromise”, read what the HuffPuff piece claims about it.

“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 the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States,” compromise amendment according to HuffPuff

This amendment passed 99-1. It was already made clear in the original sec 1031 that the bill did not expand upon the powers of the executive branch in relation to the AUMF. This language seems to make it clear that the bill will not expand upon those powers nor will it contract them. Thus the “compromise”.

Seems the senate has kicked this can down the road preferring to let this questionable debate work itself out in committee. We have not seen the end of this.

UPDATE: The SKY IS FALLING! The SKY IS FALLING!!! Be AFRAID!!!

Mike Adams (health ranger) sells tons of “alternative medicine” on his website and is certainly looking to pump-up his page views: “Senate Bill 1867 –the National Defense Authorization Act– would openly “legalize” the U.S. government’s detainment and murder of OWS protesters and the assassination of talk show hosts, bloggers, journalists and anyone who holds a so-called “anti-government” point of view.”

The murder of the OWS protesters? You can see that in the language of the bill? Really? Really?

S.1867 NDAA 2012 Debate Updates

by Scott Creighton

UPDATE: at the end of this article, check out the Feinstein amendments SA1125 and SA1126. They are simple and straight forward and when coupled with the provision already written into the NDAA 2012 that states mandatory military detentions does not apply to US citizens, these two simple fixes go a long way to preserve our civil liberties at this critical time. PLUS the Feinstein amendments were not considered yesterday so they are still under consideration for today.

——

The debate on sections 1031 and 1032 are all over the webs this morning in varying degrees of breathless, panic inducing “the sky is falling” rants. We’ll take a look at a few of them and give you yet another rundown of the actual legislation that most don’t seem to be able to link to.

Udall Amendment SA1107 Defeated in Senate

by Scott Creighton

UPDATE: you can find the roll call vote, here. SA1112 has yet to come to the floor of the senate for a vote. A few of those voting for the Udall amendment were:

Baucus (D-MT), Feinstein (D-CA), Kerry (D-MA), Reid (D-NV), Schumer (D-NY), and Rockefeller (D-WV) and of course, Rand Paul.

——-

I’ve been writing about the Udall amendment SA1107 for 3 days now. Today it was defeated in the senate by a vote of 61 to 37. Udall’s amendment sought to replace the controversial section 1031 of the NDAA 20122 Act pertaining to military detentions of terrorist suspects. In the NDAA act, US citizens are clearly exempted from military detentions. Udall’s amendment struck that part of the NDAA bill and instead recommended that Obama, Panetta, Clinton and the head of Homeland Security get together and craft legislation that they would like better for consideration by a congressional panel at a later date. In another amendment, Udall actually included language that stated that military detentions would include US citizens.

The sections of the bill that the Obama administration is most upset with are the parts of NDAA 2012 that claim that terrorists suspects other than US citizens, anywhere they are caught in the world, must be handed over to the military and it prohibits the military from renditioning suspects to black op sites run by the likes of the CIA and friendly entities across the world.

I will try to find out exactly how each senator voted.

The other Udall amendment, SA1112, which clearly states that US citizens can be detained by the military is still under consideration as far as I can tell.

S. 1867 NDAA 2012 – The Udall Solution is the Threat

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.

Udall Amendment SA 1112 To INCLUDE U.S. Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens in Military Detentions

by Scott Creighton

UPDATE: working link to congressional record page S7728 which details Udall’s SA1107 and SA1112

Sen. Udall is attempting to provide the act of congress needed to by-pass the Posse Comitatus Act

and the ACLU wants you to help him do it

In direct contradiction to the bill as written, one of Udall’s amendments to s. 1867 will include language that makes it clear that military detentions “extends to citizens of the United States and lawful resident aliens of the United States“

In the original NDAA of 2012, the text clearly states in the disputed sections 1031 and 1032 that the modifications do not seek to extend the powers of the executive branch and that the mandated military detention of terrorism suspects DOES NOT extend to U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens. I have shown this to be true of the bill in two separate articles, here and here.

This morning I wrote about a Mr. Anders from the ACLU who is apparently misleading the American public in an effort to get the Udall amendment passed which will, as I clearly showed, provide the Obama administration the opportunity to submit their own version of that section of the bill allowing for them to expand the powers of the executive branch to do exactly what Anders mistakenly claims the bill already does.

As Written Sections 1031 and 1032 of S. 1867 Do NOT Apply to U.S. Citizens

by Scott Creighton

“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

“…modifying or expanding the authority of the Executive Branch to carry out detention and prosecution of covered persons.” Udall amendment replacing above language

All across the “internets” liberal and libertarians alike are screaming about sections 1031 and 1032 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (pdf). They are breathlessly claiming they it will give the military the ability to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens under the law of war clause. These claims, this internet panic, is based ENTIRELY on an article from the ACLU’s Chris Anders which wrongly makes the claim and then strangely suggests that we all get behind Mark Udall’s proposed amendment to the bill.

In Mr. Anders’ article, he makes the mistaken claim right in the title; “Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window“

First thing to notice about Mr. Anders’ article is that he makes absolutely no attempt to link the readers to the actual text of the bill which he bases his panic inducing headline. Instead what he does is repeatedly link the reader to his “oppose section 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA” action page. I count 9 links to his action page which are cleverly disguised as “Udall Amendment” and other things that would make the reader think would be links to things which support his argument, but they don’t. Nowhere in the article does Mr. Anders supply a link to the Udall amendment which he expects you to support, sight unseen I suppose.

S. 1867 the Department of Defense Authorization Act: It’s More Convoluted Than You Think

by Scott Creighton

Indefinitely detaining terror suspects in military facilities and prosecuting them via military tribunals: Let’s make one thing perfectly clear – according to the letter of the law and the language of S. 1867, this does not apply to US citizens

Understanding the Bill itself and the Debate that is taking shape -

Part A -  the bill

Right now there is a contentious debate quietly taking place in the halls of congress behind mahogany doors, armed guards, and the all too common concrete barricades erected after 9/11. The corporate media is doing their part by completely ignoring what is taking place regardless of the fact that the proposed legislation will have unprecedented constitutional implications no matter how it turns out.