Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite View Article Stats
4 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

I Talked With an Algerian Last Night About NDAA, He Said Expect People to Start Disappearing

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 6   News 6   Valuable 6  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

I recently engaged in a friendly but rather unsettling conversation with a man from Algeria who became visibly upset when I told him about NDAA, the new law allowing indefinite military detention of US citizens  without charge or trial.  He said he had come here to get away from  that sort of thing, which had happened in his country and was fresh in  his mind.  His description of what happened in Algeria during its  equivalent of Argentina's "Dirty War" was chilling and he kept shaking  his head about the new law here, visibly distressed.

Basically what he said was that the next step is a large number of  people, it was 50,000 in his country he said, will disappear without a  trace.  The government will do it to instill fear in everyone else and  to show they can do it, and get away with it, so everyone else is much  easier to manage.  It will not matter whether you are rich or poor, on  the left or on the right, a university professor, a doctor, or if your  father is a rich businessman.  It simply won't matter.  Your family will  go to the police station to file a missing persons report but they will  not be able to help you.  Left or right doesn't matter, it is anyone  with strong opinions who can express them who are the threat.

Everywhere you turn there will be a brick wall.  No one knows  anything, yes it has been happening a lot, and no one can help.  It will  be as if you had never existed.

I asked him if there was some kind of historic national  reconciliation and prosecution of the criminals who did it.  He said no  one would know whom to prosecute, in the end, because even this much  later no one knew who was really behind it.  Of course it was the Army,  but not the entire Army, just certain specialized units, perhaps  segregated from the rest, led by generals whom other generals did not  challenge, perhaps out of fear that they could go to.  What the military  excels at is compartmentalizing functions and telling groups of people  only what they need to know, and keeping the rest almost as in the dark  as civilians.

In every respect it sounded like some sort of ultimate gang takeover.

I'm not kidding when I say he was upset.  He was squirming and  shaking his head.  He spoke with a thick French accent and said he was  going to Google this, since of course there has been a major media  blackout.  He said this is how it starts, the declared figleaf of legal  authority to detain anyone.  He acted as if he knew what comes next.  His age was hard to tell, but he was obviously educated, and he spoke well despite the thick French accent.  I have no opinion on whether he might be right or wrong, or if what he was saying is valid.  I am relating a story about someone whom I can describe as genuine, intelligent, and sincere.

Even more distressing, if that is possible, is the concerted campaign by minions of the traitors to the Constitution to assert that the new law does not apply to American citizens despite the detailed and concise warnings of opponents in the House and the Senate that the law does, and which Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) called "carefully crafted to mislead the public."

Rep. Tom McClinton (R-CA) on the House floor said:

I rise in opposition to Section 1021 of the underlying Conference Report (H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act).  This section specifically affirms that the President has the authority to deny due process to any American it charges with "substantially supporting al Qaeda, the Taliban or any "associated forces'" -- whatever that means.

Would "substantial support" of an "associated force," mean linking a web-site to a web-site that links to a web-site affiliated with al-Qaeda? We don't know.

McClintock then said:

We're told not to worry -- that the bill explicitly states that nothing in it shall alter existing law.

Then McClintock notes that "existing law" is "only an assertion by the last two presidents that this power is inherent in an open-ended and ill-defined war on terrorism."

Power now reverts back to the states, since the federal government  has egregiously violated and sought to overturn our "unalienable  rights," and we must call on our state legislators, who are closest to  us, to recall our federal representatives from Washington who voted for  this. 

Facebooks calling for states to pass and update recall laws are sprouting up both from the left and the right, which seek to clearly include federal officials among those subject to this power "not prohibited" by the Constitution and therefore "reserved to the states" and "to the people" by the Tenth Amendment, which was the Founders' brilliant expression of their desire that the Constitution was to be viewed as a straitjacket on the government, outlining limited powers, rather than an inhibitor of personal freedom.  

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution  nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States  respectively, or to the people."

Next Page  1  |  2

 

Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Stop Senate bill allowing military detention of American citizens!

Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

Ralph Lopez majored in Economics and Political Science at Yale University. He writes for Truth Out, Alternet, Consortium News, Op-Ed News, and other Internet media. He reported from Afghanistan in 2009 and produced a short documentary film on the (more...)
 
Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Wikileaks Soldier Reveals Orders for "360 Rotational Fire" Against Civilians in Iraq

Why Obama Will Not Veto NDAA Military Detention of Americans: He Requested It.

McChrystal Trying to Tell Us Something? "We're F%^*king Losing This Thing"

BoA Dumps $75 Trillion In Derivatives On Taxpayers, Super Committee Looks Away. Seize BoA Now.

Arrests at White House Over NDAA Military Detention of Americans, Occupy Wall Street Joins Fight.

Obama Lied: Taliban Did Not Refuse to Hand Over Bin Laden

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
4 people are discussing this page, with 4 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

The times they are a-changing.   Good artic... by Ned Lud on Tuesday, Dec 27, 2011 at 7:48:19 PM
Obomem signed the NDAA on Friday, which of course ... by Mike Preston on Tuesday, Dec 27, 2011 at 10:10:46 PM
[[33,000,000]]... by Richard Scott on Wednesday, Dec 28, 2011 at 12:11:58 PM
 Sir,  Your acquaintance might be w... by Ad Du on Wednesday, Dec 28, 2011 at 3:45:59 PM