Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 1 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 3 (4 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   5 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

Is The US Senate Committing Treason With the NDAA Bill?

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 3 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H4 12/9/11

December 1st, 2011, the US Senate accomplished the unthinkable--with the nearly unanimous passage of the National Defense Authorization Bill of 2012 -- they committed treason. 

Written and planned in secret by the Senate Armed Services Committee, the newly minted NDAA contains three sections which collectively  sanctions indefinite detention of alleged terrorists or "terrorist sympathizers'--anywhere in the world including the US-- and designates the military the duty to arrest, imprison and interrogate without benefit of counsel,' accused civilians here on Main Street.  

Ironically, the abuse of civilian Iraqis by our military and by military contractors is coming to a locale near you. Theoretically, armed squads of US soldiers might be knocking on your door in the dead of night to take away Auntie Mame for her alleged "terrorist' activities--at the ACLU.  This bill potentially allows for the blatant political prosecutions of any dissenter using the military as a bully club to instill deep fear in any who dare to question our government's motives.

No proof of wrongdoing is required and those accused are denied the due process right of trial by their peers, or the services of an attorney-- and are subsequently relegated to the "military commissions justice system.'  As a result, the accused are reduced to the status of "unlawful enemy combatant,' and are subject to the following actions: "extroardinary rendition', "enhanced interrogation' procedures, "indefinite detention to possibly a life sentence, and "presidential assigned extermination of target'.  

These powers are then "given' to the President to use at will, fully codified in law,while requiring in reality no proof other than presidential whim.

It is at this juncture that I find the timing of this bill suspicious -- coinciding with the exponential growth of the Occupy Wall Street Movement, the recent implosion of both EU and US economies, the emerging body of proof  documenting Wall Street's enormous crimes, and the Super Committee threat to cut military funding.  It almost looks like the robber barons of Wall Street "circling the wagons' in a fit of legislative revenge against the rabble, namely you and I.

History of NDAA 2012 Sections 1031, 1032, and 1033-35...another AUMF
This bill was co-written by the powerful Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Senator Carl Levin (D) and the Senate Minority Leader John McCain, with Senator Lindsey Graham assigning himself as main cheerleader. 

The deliberations were kept secret and any debate was forbidden.  Crafted under the auspices of keeping our nation "safe from terrorism'--the entire world including the US is now classified as a battlefield with indefinite timelines.   Anyone broaching the question of due process rights is shouted down as "soft on terrorism' -- mainly by Senator Graham.  

In fact, here is an example of how Senator Graham views the issues of due process rights:

..." If you're an American citizen and you betray your country, you're going to be questioned about what you know," ..."and you're not going to be given a lawyer if our national security interests dictate that you not be given a lawyer and go into the criminal justice system, because "we're not fighting crime, we're fighting a war."

What should have been an ordinary defense appropriations bill morphed into a "get out of jail free' card for this president and any others, after arbitrarily rendering previously constitutionally protected dissent into a war crime.  

The NDAA or S. 1867 allows any president the right to sentence anyone including US citizens to "indefinite detention' in a military prison. Those sentenced under this new "law' are sentenced without a trial or the aid of an attorney.  They have no due process rights other than what the ' military justice' system allows any other unlawful enemy combatant.  Bluntly put, even American citizens accused, but not tried and found guilty - can be sent to Guantanamo. 

Confronted with this possibility by Tea Party Senator Rand Paul, Senator McCain gave a casual answer. 

Senator Rand Paul: "My question would be under the provisions would it be possible that an American citizen then could be declared an enemy combatant and sent to Guantanamo Bay and detained indefinitely."

Senator John McCain: "I think that as long as that individual, no matter who they are, if they pose a threat to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue that threat."

This development would have remained secret, except for the whistleblowing of the ACLU earlier in the week right before Thanksgiving.  Again, the silence coming from the US Senate Armed Services Committee, chaired by democratic Senator Carl Levin and assisted by Senate Minority Leader Senator John McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham, was deafening.

Sections 1031, 1032 and 1033-35...
What has been referred to in a mundane legalese style as "Section 1031 is a renewal of the 2001 AUMF or the Authorization to Use Military Force amended with sneaky, ill defined expansions of the original language: ie. allowing military force and military detention against previously identified perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, the countries allegedly harboring them and anyone who "substantially supports" Al Qaeda, the Taliban or""associated forces."  The magic words which define this Orwellian doublespeak legalese are the phrases: "substantially supports' and "associated forces.'

Nowhere in this herculean piece of legislation do we find any concrete criterion clearly establishing the definition of "'substantial support' or "associated forces.'  The fact that this bill was written by Carl Levin, an acknowleged civil rights attorney, with language so vague, constitutes what can only be described as premeditated fraud--and serves as poignant testimony to the cowardly and treasonous nature of the US Senate in 2011.  

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

 

NA

I am an experienced urban educator of some 24 years. During any 'down time' I work for various political groups. Presently, I am the St. Louis Organizer for Code Pink.

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting
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)

Is The US Senate Committing Treason With the NDAA Bill?

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  
3 people are discussing this page, with 5 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Note: this article is a reposting of the original ... by Jeanine Molloff on Friday, Dec 9, 2011 at 12:17:15 PM
My biggest question here is what criteria are used... by Donna Sims on Saturday, Dec 10, 2011 at 12:51:31 PM
The criteria for determining who is 'detained' und... by Jeanine Molloff on Saturday, Dec 10, 2011 at 4:09:00 PM
I would agree that so called such as this amount t... by Bill Johnson on Sunday, Dec 11, 2011 at 7:10:02 AM
I agree. Please send this article far and wide so... by Jeanine Molloff on Sunday, Dec 11, 2011 at 4:33:41 PM