top
Americas
Americas
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Is The Passed Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (retroactive) To Detain Americans?

by Sue Riley
The Defense Authorization Act of 2012) appears more threatening to Americans than Hitler's (1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS. Hitler's laws set time limits that Germans could be incarcerated for e.g., Serious Disturbance of the Peace and Rioting. But McCain's bill broadly mandates holding Americans indefinitely in Military Custody for being a Combatant or Belligerent.

Why should anyone be surprised President Obama insisted on indefinite detentions of U.S. Citizens in The Defense Authorization Act. It was widely known that Obama gave a speech in May 2010 at a Security Conference that proposed, incarcerating anyone in indefinite detention without evidence of wrongdoing that government deemed a “combatant” or likely to engage or support a violent act in the future; including U.S. Citizens.

Now that Obama has signed The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Obama like Hitler, will have the power to arrest members of Congress, drag U.S. Citizens off the street and from their homes to be imprisoned indefinitely based only on Government’s premise someone is a “Combatant” or Belligerent” having or likely to engage in or support a violent act in the future or do something that (might) threaten National Security.

Now that Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, could millions of lawful U.S. activists be subject to indefinite military detention. When you examine Obama’s May 2010 speech, it appears Obama wanted (retroactive power) to incarcerate anyone that government alleged had (prior) committed or supported violent acts on the premise he or she is likely to engage in or support violent acts in the future: some U.S. activists may be vulnerable because no activist knows what other activists or groups they associated or networked did in the past or might do illegally in the future domestically or overseas. U.S. Government need (only allege) a person; group, organization or former inmate—has committed or might commit a violent act or threaten U.S. National Security to order Indefinite Detention of Americans in military custody with no evidence whatsoever.

Historically when countries have passed police state laws like S.1847, many Citizens abstain from politically speaking out; visiting activists websites or writing comments that might be deemed inappropriate by the Government, i.e. cause someone to be investigated or detained in Military Custody. Are some writers dead-meat with Obama’s signing of S. 1867? It is foreseeable any “American” who writes on the Internet or verbally express an opinion against any entity of U.S. Government or its coalition partners may under the Patriot Act and The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 be deemed by U.S. authorities a “Combatant or Belligerent” or someone likely to engage in, support or provoke violent acts or threaten National Security. U.S. Government can too easily allege an author’s writings inspired Combatant(s) or Belligerent(s) in the past; could in the future or currently, to order an author’s indefinite military detention. It is problematic that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings or allowed legal counsel that are interrogated, will be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite Military Detention. Obama will have the power to override the U.S. Constitution. Obama will have the power to detain indefinitely any American without probable cause or evidence. What American will dare speak out against the U.S. government now that Obama had signed The Defense Authorization Act of 2012?

Obama appears to be centralizing the power of federal Government, by getting legislation passed that U.S. government can potentially use to intimidate and threaten any individual or corporation. Hitler got passed similar laws shortly before the burning of the German Parliament building blamed on the communists: immediately after the fire, Hitler used his prior passed police-state laws to coerce corporations and influential Citizens to support passage of fascist legislation e.g., the (1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS / DECREE OF THE REICH PRESIDENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE AND STATE that suspended provisions of the German Constitution that protected Citizens’ freedoms and civil liberties. McCain’s (The Defense Authorization Act of 2012) appears more threatening to Americans than Hitler’ (1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS. Hitler’s laws set time limits that Germans could be incarcerated for e.g., Serious Disturbance of the Peace and Rioting. But McCain’s bill broadly mandates holding Americans indefinitely in Military Custody for being a Combatant or Belligerent. A U.S. Police State Government can use The Defense Authorization Act; and Patriot Act that includes more than 350 civil asset forfeiture laws to threaten or seize the assets of any corporation or individual; to strong-arm U.S. corporations, institutions and others to support government actions including passage of more Police State (Fascist) legislation that will intimidate, threaten and curtail the civil liberties of Americans.

Immediately Below: The Nazi 1933 Decrees Signed By Hitler
Compare The 1933 Nazi Decrees Below with S. McCain’s National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

1933. ROBL. I 83.
DECREE OF THE REICH PRESIDENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF
THE PEOPLE AND STATE

Note: Based on translations by State Department, National Socialism, 1942 PP. 215-17, and Pollak, J.K., and Heneman, H.J., The Hitler Decrees, (1934), pp. 10-11.7

In virtue of Section 48 (2) of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against Communist acts of Violence, endangering the state:

Section 1
Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

Section 2
If in a state the measures necessary for the restoration of public security and order are not taken, the Reich Government may temporarily take over the powers of the highest state authority.

Section 4
Whoever provokes, or appeals for or incites to the disobedience of the orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities subject to then for the execution of this decree, or the orders given by the Reich Government according to Section 2, is punishable—insofar as the deed, is not covered by the decree with more severe punishment and with imprisonment of not less that one month, or with a fine from 150 up to 15,000 Reichsmarks.

Who ever endangers human life by violating Section 1, is to be punished by sentence to a penitentiary, under mitigating circumstances with imprisonment of not less than six months and, when violation causes the death of a person, with death, under mitigating circumstances with a penitentiary sentence of not less that two years. In addition the sentence my include confiscation of property.

Whoever provokes an inciter to or act contrary to public welfare is to be punished with a penitentiary sentence, under mitigating circumstances, with imprisonment of not less than three months.

Section 5
The crimes which under the Criminal Code are punishable with penitentiary for life are to be punished with death: i.e., in Sections 81 (high treason), 229 (poisoning), 306 (arson), 311 (explosion), 312 (floods), 315, paragraph 2 (damage to railroad properties, 324 (general poisoning).
Insofar as a more severe punishment has not been previously provided for, the following are punishable with death or with life imprisonment or with imprisonment not to exceed 15 years:

1. Anyone who undertakes to kill the Reich President or a member or a commissioner of the Reich Government or of a state government, or provokes to such a killing, or agrees to commit it, or accepts such an offer, or conspires with another for such a murder;
2. Anyone who under Section 115 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious rioting) or of Section 125 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious disturbance of the peace) commits the act with arms or cooperates consciously and intentionally with an armed person;
3. Anyone who commits a kidnapping under Section 239 of the Criminal with the intention of making use of the kidnapped person as a hostage in the political struggle.

Section 6
This decree enters in force on the day of its promulgation.

Reich President

Reich Chancellor
Reich Minister of the Interior
Reich Minister of Justice
Add Your Comments

Comments (Hide Comments)
by Bee
Please fix your punctuation. I don't mean to sound like a snob but your article will gain a lot more credibility if you insert question marks in the appropriate places :)
by Kynewulf
Interesting that you say that Obama "insisted" upon this when it was insisted upon by the likes of Levin and McCain. This should never had reached the president's desk--this a failure of both republicans and democrats because there was overwhelming support on both sides of the aisle, so don' t even try to sell that partisan BS. It's because of this sort of partisanship that the American people are losing and the politicians and their corporate masters are winning.
by Brandt Hardin
It's so open to interpretation I don't think ANYone really understands the implications. The NDAA if passed will only go to further stifle our Constitutional Rights without the approval of the Americans, just as the Patriot Act was adopted WITHOUT public approval or vote just weeks after the events of 9/11. A mere 3 criminal charges of terrorism a year are attributed to this act, which is mainly used for no-knock raids leading to drug-related arrests without proper cause for search and seizure. The laws are simply a means to spy on our own citizens and to detain and torture dissidents without trial or a right to council. You can read much more about living in this Orwellian society of fear and see my visual response to these measures on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2011/09/living-in-society-of-fear-ten-years.html
by roknich
Who needs a law? Bradley Manning was detained for 18 months with no charges against him excpet for a sentence from the POTUS: "He broke the law".

What is threatening is the attempt to make this conduct legal.

Has this illegal conduct of our current POTUS been effectively challenged?

yes, that would cost money. Better ante up. see what can be done here -

http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/ccr-appeals-denial-of-guaranteed-access-manning-hearing-wikileaks-attorneys

Is there a particular reason that the Author is not acknowledging that this is the McCain-Levin (D) bill and not just the McCain (R) bill? Surely the Author realizes that O'Bama isn't the only Democrat backing this bill. Without a significant amount of votes by Democrats this would have never passed, right? Are the Democrats really the lesser of two evils or the sneakier of the two evils. Just enough voted in the Senate to get past 60 votes. It's called a dog and Pony show.
by ironboltbruce
Charge Congress with Seditious Conspiracy!

Regardless of whether Bushbama has signed the NDAA, charge Congress with Seditious Conspiracy for passing it:

1. Sections 1031 and 1032 were renumbered to 1021 and 1022 in the final wording of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (the "NDAA"). Here is the final wording (PDF page 81 of 371):

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-12-12/pdf/CREC-2011-12-12-pt1-PgH8356-5.pdf

2. Don't believe the Kleptocracy's "everything's fine" propaganda. Instead, PLEASE read constitutional lawyer Glen Greenwald's explanation of that final wording here:

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/

3. Use NaSI SARs to charge Carl Levin, Howard "Buck" McKeon and your U.S. Representative and Senators who voted for NDAA (S.1867/H.R.1540) with "Seditious Conspiracy" under U.S. Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 115 Section 2384. Details here:

http://corporategreedchronicles.com/

DON'T BE AFRAID TO FIGHT CORPORATE FASCISM AND FIGHT IT ***NOW*** AMERICA!

DON'T LET YOUR FEAR COST YOUR CHILDREN THEIR FREEDOM AND THEIR FUTURE!
It is problematic U.S. Government in the future will want to expand the scoop of Section 1021 in the passed Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (to include as “covered persons” for Indefinite Detention, not only persons “suspected of substantially supporting al-Qaeda or the Taliban; or their associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners” (but add to the list of “covered persons” (other) alleged terrorists and organizations foreign or domestic. Currently what constitutes (1) a terrorist act, (2) supporting terrorists or (3) being a “Belligerent” is broadly vague and not clearly defined? For example, Americans attending a protest demonstration against a U.S. Policy or U.S. Military Action could be charged with all (three) under the Patriot Act and The Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

Provisions in The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 govern the “Authority of the President and Armed Forces to Detain (Covered Persons) without trial pursuant to the (AUMF) Authorization for Use of Military Force.

FYI: Glenn Greenwald recently wrote an article titled “Three myths about the detention bill” that deeply examine provisions of The Defense Authorization Act including wording that is broadly vague, that potentially could cause the indefinite incarceration of Americans without trial; and notes conflicting definitions of “Covered Persons” in provisions (A) & (B) of section 1021. You may read Glen Greenwald’s article at:
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/
by Marcy
Everything is threatening Bobby Brown Serves Nine Hours in Jail for Third DUI
While California is known for having some of the toughest DUI laws in the nation, it seems Bobby Brown has been let off easy. He was released Wednesday after serving nine hours of his 55-day jail sentence for driving under the influence.
L.A. County sheriff’s spokesman Steve Whitmore told the media that Brown was released early due to jail overcrowding and good behavior.
http://zautos.com/bobby-brown-serves-nine-hours-in-jail-for-third-dui/
We live in a world with two different sets of laws.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$110.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network