Myth busted: Yes, the NDAA does apply to Americans, and here’s the text that says so Mike Adams 1. Natural News Monday, January 2, 2012 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 the internet 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 and understand what it says, it clearly offers absolutely no protections of U.S. citizens. In fact, it affirms 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. Here is the title: (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-…) SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY 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 the Authorization 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” to use military force (against American citizens). Keep that in mind as you read the next section: (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 the United 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 around saying “protects American citizens” from the NDAA. But where do they dream up such language? If you read section (e) again, you’ll discover it says nothing whatsoever about protecting American citizens from the NDAA. Instead, here’s what it really says when parsed into 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 who are captured or arrested in the United States. • Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing 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. In other words, section (e) only says that it does notalter“existing authorities” relating to the detention 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 killing of American citizens As everyone who studies history well knows, the Patriot Act already establishes an “existing authority” 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 not a debated issue; it’s widely recognized. Furthermore, President Obama already insists that he has the authority to kill American citizens 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 on a “kill list” and then murder that person, without trial, without due process, and without even being arrested. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011…) Importantly, as Reuters reports, “Two principal legal theories were advanced [in support of the kill 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 the killing of an American citizen. All that is required is that they besuspectedof being involved in terrorism in any way, and not a shred of evidence is required by the government to support that. There is no trial, no arraignment, no evidence and not even a hearing. You are simply accused and then disappeared. Thus, the authority already exists, you see, and the NDAA openly states that “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing AUTHORITIES…” In other words, the NDAA does nothing to protect American citizens, and it piggy-backs on the Patriot Act as well as Obama’s executive “kill list” justifications to essentially place all Americans 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’s expansive view of his own power were in statute, that statement would be true. Instead, the section 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 says the bill doesn’t change that view.(http://www.facebook.com/note.php?no…) Follow more from Rep. Justin Amash at Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash 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 being involved 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 any of these activities, and then LEGALLY arrested, detained, interrogated or even killed by the U.S. government, all under Obama’s authority (or whatever next President takes over in Washington 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 merely for being “suspected” of involvement with “terrorism,” which could be interpreted to apply in practically any situation. Reading between the lines Get this through your heads, folks: to properly understand the NDAA (or any other bill), you have to learn to think like lawyers and tyrants. They don’t just put language right out in plain view that says, “Americans may never be arrested or detained without due process.” Instead, they create a web of legalese statements that are cross-referenced, paraphrased and specifically engineered to obfuscate their intended purpose. This isdesignedto hide their true intentions, not to make them clear. Furthermore, if the bill actually intended toprotectAmericans from the NDAA, then it should have contained language saying something like, “American citizens are specifically excluded from 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 apply to American citizens. The writers of the bill have managed to fool a lot of everyday people who seem unable to parse language and read plain English with any depth of understanding. That is as much a failure of America’s public education system as anything else. I find it astonishing that today’s citizenscan’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 governmentsponsored 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, have no illusions that a future President will try to use the powers enacted by Obama to carry out such crimes. Gingrich, anyone?
Obama’s NDAA Signing Statement is Just Smoke 1. Washington’s Blog Monday, January 2, 2012 Obama signed the NDAA – including a provision allowing the indefinite detention of Americans - on New Year’s eve. Obama issued a “signing statement” with the bill, which – at first blush – appears to say he won’t indefinitely detain Americans. Specifically, Obama wrote: My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens … Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation. But a closer reading shows that the signing statement is just smoke and mirrors. Specifically, it was Obama - not Congress – who originally requested that an exception for American citizens be removed from the bill. As such, his professed reluctance is wholly disingenuous. Moreover, Obama signed a bill which would allow future presidents to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens, and his signing statement in no way limits their power to run roughshod over our rights. As the ACLU notes: The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision. While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use the authorities granted by the NDAA, and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations. The White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA, but reversed course shortly before Congress voted on the final bill. “President Obama’s action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony D.
Romero, ACLU executive director. “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.” Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again. The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA. In addition, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war. “We are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention authority in court,” said Romero. “Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today. Thankfully, we have three branches of government, and the final word belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority. But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAA’s detention authority.” In addition, Obama has claimed the power to assassinate American citizens without any trial or charge. Obama’s signing statement doesn’t even pretend to limit that power.
THE INAUGURATION OF POLICE STATE USA 2012. Obama Signs the “National Defense Authorization Act Michel Chossudovsky 1. Global Research Monday, January 2, 2012 With minimal media debate, at a time when Americans were celebrating the New Year with their loved ones, the “National Defense Authorization Act ” H.R. 1540 was signed into law by President Barack Obama. The actual signing took place in Hawaii on the 31st of December. According to Obama’s “signing statement”, the threat of Al Qaeda to the Security of the Homeland constitutes a justification for repealing fundamental rights and freedoms, with a stroke of the pen. The controversial signing statement (see transcript below) is a smokscreen. Obama says he disagrees with the NDAA but he signs it into law. “[I have] serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.” Obama implements “Police State USA”, while acknowledging that certain provisions of the NDAA are unacceptable. If such is the case, he could have either vetoed the NDAA (H.R. 1540) or sent it back to Congress with his objections. The “National Defense Authorization Act ” (H.R. 1540) is Obama’s New Year’s “Gift” to the American People. He justifies the signing of the NDAA as a means to combating terrorism, as part of a “counterterrorism” agenda. But in substance, any American opposed to the policies of the US government can –under the provisions of the NDAA– be labelled a “suspected terrorist” and arrested under military detention. “Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws
of war, and all other applicable law.” Barack Obama is a lawyer (a graduate from Harvard Law School). He knows fair well that his signing statement –which parrots his commitment to democracy– is purely cosmetic. It has no force of law. His adminstration “will not authorize” what? The implementaiton of a Law signed by the US president? Section 1021 is crystal clear. The Executive cannot refuse to implement it. The signing statement does not in any way invalidate or modify the actual signing by President Obama of NDAA (H.R. 1540) into law. “Democratic Dictatorship” in America The “National Defense Authorization Act ” (H.R. 1540) repeals the US Constitution. While the facade of democracy prevails, supported by media propaganda, the American republic is fractured. The tendency is towards the establishment of a totalitarian State, a military government dressed in civilian clothes. The passage of NDAA is intimately related to Washington’s global military agenda. The military pursuit of Worldwide hegemony also requires the “Militarization of the Homeland”, namely the demise of the American Republic. In substance, the signing statement is intended to mislead Americans and provide a “democratic face” to the President as well as to the unfolding post-911 Military Police State apparatus. The “most important traditions and values” in derogation of The Bill of Rights and the US Constitution have indeed been repealed, effective on New Year’s Day, January 1st 2012. The NDAA authorises the arbitrary and indefinite military detention of American citizens. The Lessons of History This New Year’s Eve December 31, 2011 signing of the NDAA will indelibly go down as a landmark in American history. If we are to put this in a comparative historical context, the relevant provisions of the NDAA HR 1540 are, in many regards, comparable to those contained in the “Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State”, commonly known as the “Reichstag Fire Decree” (Reichstagsbrandverordnung) enacted in Germany under the Weimar Republic on 27 February 1933 by President (Field Marshal) Paul von Hindenburg. Implemented in the immediate wake of the Reichstag Fire (which served as a pretext), this February 1933 decree was used to repeal civil liberties including the right of Habeas Corpus. Article 1 of the February 1933 “Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State” suspended civil liberties under the pretext of “protecting” democracy: “Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of association and assembly, 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 rights are permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.” (Art. 1, emphasis added) Constitutional democracy was nullified in Germany through the signing of a presidential decree.
The Reichstag Fire decree was followed in March 1933 by “The Enabling Act” ( Ermächtigungsgesetz) which allowed (or enabled) the Nazi government of Chancellor Adolf Hitler to invoke de facto dictatorial powers. These two decrees enabled the Nazi regime to introduce legislation which was in overt contradiction with the 1919 Weimar Constitution. The following year, upon the death of president Hindenburg in 1934, Hitler “declared the office of President vacant” and took over as Fuerer, the combined function’s of Chancellor and Head of State. Obama’s New Year’s Gift to the American People To say that January 1st 2012 is “A Sad Day for America” is a gross understatement. The signing of NDAA (HR 1540) into law is tantamount to the militarization of law enforcement, the repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Inauguration in 2012 of Police State USA. As in Weimar Germany, fundamental rights and freedoms are repealed under the pretext that democracy is threatened and must be protected. The NDAA is “Obama’s New Year’s Gift” to the American People. … Michel Chossudovsky, Montreal, Canada, January, 1st 2012 Today, January 1st, 2012, our thoughts are with the American people. The Obama Deception http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw Fall of the Republic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU EndGame Blue Print to Global Enslavement http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-CrNlilZho&ob=av3e