NDAA – Section 1021″Civilian Authority-the US Constitution” vs “Military Authority-Commander In Chief”

T-Room

Abby Martin interviewed Thomas Drake, a Whistleblower who outed NSA’s covert wiretapping program known as Trailblazer, on this weeks “Breaking the Set.”

Martin asks Drake how it felt when the government he once worked for filed charges against him using the Espionage Act for blowing the whistle on the illegal wiretapping program, his response “Total betrayal.” He went onto to say “It is important to note I took an Oath four times to support and defend the constitution. That oath was not an oath to the President, it was not an oath to lie, it was not an oath to secrecy, it was not an oath to a national security agency.  It was certainly not an oath to look the other way when the government itself commits massive fraud, waste and abuse and engages itself in wrongdoing and illegality and that’s precisely what the government did after 9/11, on a vast scale.”

Drake then goes onto articulate “You can’t have a government violating the constitution in secret and then forming all of these alliances w/corporations who themselves are ensuring the continuance of their own interests through the government. That’s not in the best interests of the country let alone the constitution.”

As for the National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, Section 1021 also known as Indefinite Detention, Drake holds nothing back pinpointing precisely the concern every American should have stating “Section 1021 is really a generalized provision under which the government unto itself wants to exercise military authority at anytime, anywhere, basically against anybody in the United States of America.” The key word in that sentence is “military authority” not “civilian authority” which should send chills up your spine.

Should Obama and Congress Be Arrested Under the NDAA?

T-Room

Should President Obama (alongside Lindsay Graham and John McCain) be wearing an orange jumpsuit?

Welcome to the beautiful and surreal reality of life under American corporatism, under a Congress that churns out thousands  and thousands of pages of (often contradictory) legislation a year.

If providing material assistance to al-Qaeda is illegal under the National Defence Authorization Act (2012), and Obama and Congress are sending $25 million of aid to al-Qaeda-affiliated Syrian opposition, aren’t Congress and President Obama violating their own law?

NDAA: The Most Important Lawsuit in American History that No One is Talking About

Knowledge_Is_Power

Despite a mainstream media blackout on the topic, the alternative media is abuzz with this week’s hearing on the constitutionality of the clearly unconstitutional NDAA. In case you don’t remember, section 1021 of the NDAA, which Obama signed into law on December 31 of last year, allows the government to lock up U.S. citizens indefinitely without a trial. At the time of signing, Obama penned a pathetic letter to many of his outraged supporters where he basically said he signed it but he won’t use it. Thanks pal!

In any event, the Administration is showing its true colors by appealing an injunction that judge Katherine Forrest issued against it in May. The injunction was in response to the lawsuit filed by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges and others. While the NDAA clearly vaporizes the 5th and 6th Amendments of the Constitution, I believe the real target is the 1st Amendment.

Obama Hires his Personal Murder Czar and Dems continue to Threaten SCOTUS

CFP

When any country’s leader reaches comprehensive dictator status, he begins either incarcerating or killing off his opponents (aka enemies).  One need only look at the rich and murderous histories of Josef Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot and other tyrannical rulers to know that this is a fait accompli in all totalitarian regimes.  In one way or another, each of these tyrants conducted their own personal genocide(s).

Judge Blocks Controversial NDAA

Courthouse News Service

MANHATTAN (CN) – A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction late Wednesday to block provisions of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act that would allow the military to indefinitely detain anyone it accuses of knowingly or unknowingly supporting terrorism.      Signed by President Barack Obama on New Year’s Eve, the 565-page NDAA contains a short paragraph, in statute 1021, letting the military detain anyone it suspects “substantially supported” al-Qaida, the Taliban or “associated forces.” The indefinite detention would supposedly last until “the end of hostilities.”      In a 68-page ruling blocking this statute, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest agreed that the statute failed to “pass constitutional muster” because its broad language could be used to quash political dissent.

A Real Constitutional Law Professor’s Take On The NDAA

Western Journalism

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), recently adopted by Congress and signed into law by Barack Obama, contains language that has raised substantial Constitutional questions by civil libertarians on both the political right and on the political left. The bulk of the lengthy legislation deals with the routine authorization for military spending by the Pentagon, including items such as military pay, veterans’ benefits, weapons procurement, etc. Such legislation must be passed on a regular basis if the United States military is to continue to operate.

However, in the U. S. Senate version of the legislation, S.1867, there are sections dealing with the detaining of people suspected of being involved with terrorist organizations or any groups engaging in, or planning, hostile actions against the United States. These suspects can be arrested by American military forces and detained indefinitely, without formal charges being filed, and without trial, until the “hostilities” end. The term hostilities refers to the general war on terror, not to specific military actions, such as those in Afghanistan or Iraq. Therefore, there is no end in sight to the possible period of detention. This is the version that was ultimately passed by the full Congress.

Continued Reading:

OWS and the planned “endgame” for the U.S.

Knowledge_Is_Power

Are you baffled by the wording, timing and bipartisan support of recent legislation such as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Expatriation Act, SOPA, PIPA and ACTA? Are you concerned over the enhancement of domestic security measures that appear to be targeting and incrementally ripping away the rights of law abiding American citizens? Are you concerned about the evolving DHS “domestic extremist” definitions? Have you wondered about the true origins of the financial crises and what appears to be a quickening of events in all sectors of our lives? How about the origins of the current “occupy movement?” When and why everything started? Who and what is to blame? If so, you’re not alone.

Obama Usurps Our Freedoms with the Stroke of a Pen

Floyd Reports

It’s ironic that Obama-Soetoro should have put so many lumps of coal in American’s Christmas stockings this year, since one of them was EPA regulations designed to kill the coal industryitself. However, that was but one of many really evil, dangerous, and destructive acts performed this year by the would-be Marxist dictator currently squatting in the White House. In collusion with his stooges in the Senate and the House, he took some giant steps that shredded the Constitution and moved us to the very brink of totarian rulealit.

Indefinite Detention: The NDAA and the Enemy Expatriation Act

The Politicians’ Betrayal of America

©2011 drkate

They are about to find out that ignorance is not bliss, it is instead the betrayal of America

The true intention of the GOP, their candidates, their minions, and their so-called “Tea Party”–yes, Tea Party, the GOP now owns you– have become so clear in the last two years–they all want the current corrupt system to remain the same.  Aside from the corruption, the blindness, and the ignorance, I conclude they’ve forgotten entirely what this Country is supposed to be about, and who makes a true leader.  Its like rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic.

Here is a reminder of the kind of person a true Constitutionalist, a true Conservative  and a true American should vote for.