Now that the issue has been thoroughly disposed of despite an all-out disinformation campaign led by Obama himself: that the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 does apply to American citizens, it is time to ask: Who makes the determination, with no evidence or showing of probable cause required, without right to counsel or any contact with family or friends allowed, that you have "substantially supported...associated forces" of Al-Qaeda?
To pre-empt the shills and disinfo artists who continue to attempt to proclaim that NDAA does not apply to American citizens, a simple boiler plate dissection of the key language you can share with the kids on your block:
(b) COVERED PERSONS.--A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forcesthat 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.
"Substantial support" of an "associated force" may imply
citizens engaged in innocuous, First Amendment activities.
Direct support of such hostilities in aid of enemy forces
may be construed as free speech opposition to U.S. government
policies, aid to civilians, or acts of civil disobedience.
Rep. Tom McClintock opposed the bill on the House floor saying it:
"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."
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.--The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-- 84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(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.
(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.
"Existing law" is Fourth Circuit in Jose Padilla.
Section 1022 "(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS":
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.--The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
Even if US citizens are not "required" to be detained by the military in terrorism cases, it is still "allowed."
Now back to the question. Who decides, without benefit of a jury, collection and presentation of evidence, counsel for the accused, all that American stuff, who is guilty and who is not in the "war on terror?" Perhaps the better question, given that "the government" encompasses such a vast array of agencies, is "what manner of men hold authority in our country?"
The manner of men who said it was "100% certain" that Brandon Mayfield's fingerprints were a match in the Madrid train bombing, until the Spanish authorities went public with the FBI error after telling the FBI privately, repeatedly, that they had the wrong guy in Mayfield. Mayfield would be rotting in prison this very moment were it not for the Spanish government.
The manner of men who arrested Johnnie Lee Savory at the age of 14 for a double murder he did not commit, who is still denied the DNA tests by State of Illinois which he says will prove his innocence, to be of no cost to the state as they would be paid for by his supporters. Tavis Smiley of PBS has taken up Savory's quest, as has the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).