If you have been living under a rock or more appropriately, relying on mainstream media to get your news from, you may find yourself like many other Americans who are still unaware of what President Obama and Congress pulled on the American people back in December 2011.
As part of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Congress added two sections that could have repercussions for the uninformed public. Specifically Section 1021 and 1022 explicitly grant the President, current and future, to order the arrest, indefinite detainment, ability to refrain from having to make charges public, provide access to an attorney, revoke due process, and ultimately, the assassination of anyone who is:
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
While al-Qaeda and the Taliban are directly spelled out, notice the part associated forces that are engaged in hostilities and the part about belligerent acts. President Obama threatened several times before the NDAA was passed that if it was passed that he would veto the bill.
On December 31, 2011, while Americans were busy celebrating the incoming New Year, President Obama signed the bill and issued a signing statement.
Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “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.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. 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.
Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa’ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.
I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.
President Obama said in his statement that while he has the power to detain indefinitely, including United States Citizens, that his administration would not use this provision against any American citizen.
Senator Carl Levin spoke on the Senate floor and exposed that it was President Obama and his administration that actually asked for the inclusion of the language that was added to the bill that he signed. So in essence, President Obama was threatening to veto the NDAA but for the reasons he tried to lie to the American people about. Rather, President Obama was threatening to veto the bill unless the language was added. I can assure you that President Obama did not count on this information being revealed on the floor of the Senate.
Ben Swann, a reporter for WXIX Fox19 out of Cincinnati, Ohio had interviewed President Obama about the specific provisions.
Notice President Obama dances around Mr. Swann’s questions. Since Obama has signed the NDAA at the start of the year, several reporters have challenged the Constitutional legality that was struct down as being unconstitutional but continued to be appealed by the President’s administration. Just last week, a three judge panel decided to grant the President’s appeal, effectively overturning the federal judge who had agreed with the plaintiffs and blocked the section of the NDAA that allowed indefinite detainment.
If that was the only thing to occur this year, perhaps it wouldn’t be as much to worry about. Between the government buying hollow point rounds for Social Security Administration, rounds for the National Weather Service, and over 1.5 billion rounds for the Department of Homeland Security, something more serious appears to be on the horizon.
Back in June, military police traveled to St. Louis, Missouri to drive tanks for martial law training. Why would military police need to train for martial law unless there is some type of indication that something is coming down the pike to require such training?
Do they expect civil unrest to occur should another economic collapse happen? Or does the current Congress which is saddled with a low 13% approval rating plan to address a pissed off public by enacting martial law to quell any future uprising? Or could there be some impending threat from a foreign country that the mainstream media refuses to inform the public about? Could it be something along the lines of the movie Armageddon and the entire earth could be in jeopardy at some point?
Whatever is going on, the American people deserve to know the entire truth so whatever disaster our government is planning for, we can prepare for it as well. Even if that disaster turns out to be our own government turning against the same people it was trusted to represent yet they continually steal from and lie to.