Silence
is consent: now America
is under martial law
Are you going to stay silent or scream for Freedom?
H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act
by Gianluca Zanna
I was born
and grew up in Italy where my grandfather used to tell me how fascism
took over because good people had not the courage to say or do nothing
when they had a chance... they just let it happen. Their silent was
consent.
In a phrase:" All that is required for evil to flourish is for
good men (and women) to do or say nothing."
I could not really understand these words till the last few years since
I have witnessed a transformation of America, my new beloved Country,
under my own eyes.
From a great idea of Liberty to a technocratic Police State where day
after day all our rights were eroded. In the name of security of course
(sarcastic).
Things got worst just few days ago... to a new level of evil.
I am talking about the new bill H.R. 1540, the National Defense
Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2012.
This travesty of a "law" has already passed the House, the
Senate, and now ready to be signed by the man acting as a president
in the White House.
One section of the bill gives the President the authority to detain indefinitely American citizens, picked up on American soil, because they are allegedly supporting the enemy.
According
to many Homeland security documents government, We are the Enemies:
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/1006
"People that support the US Constitution, Veterans, Christians,
Gun Owners, Libertarians, Conservative, just simply who protests the
government, liberals included of course..."
Now the military will have the authority to indefinitely maintain
terrorism "suspects", including U.S. citizens, without
charge, no trial, no judge, no due process... indefinitely!!!
We go back to the time of the King. Or even worst. Not even the King
used to do this.
I remind you two of the reasons why America has been blessed for so
many years with Freedom:
1) Our Republic had strong laws that limited the use of deployment of
our military on our soil and to serve as police force.
2)Since the creation of the Bill of Rights (and even previously since
the Magna Charta) everybody had the right to a fair trial with due process.
I say had, because now in the new Amerika not anymore.
The three
principal myths being spread by supporters of this bill very well
explained in this article of Salon.com
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/
Myth # 1: This bill does not codify indefinite detention
Section 1021 of the NDAA governs, as its title says, “Authority
of the Armed Forces to Detain Covered Persons Pursuant to the AUMF.”
The first provision — section (a) — explicitly “affirms
that the authority of the President” under the AUMF ”includes
the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered
persons.” The next section, (b), defines “covered persons”
— i.e., those who can be detained by the U.S. military — as
“a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda,
the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against
the United States or its coalition partners.” With regard to those
“covered individuals,” this is the power vested in the President
by the next section, (c):
It simply cannot be any clearer within the confines of the English language
that this bill codifies the power of indefinite detention. It expressly
empowers the President — with regard to anyone accused of the acts
in section (b) – to detain them “without trial until the end
of the hostilities.” That is the very definition of “indefinite
detention,” and the statute could not be clearer that it vests
this power. Anyone claiming this bill does not codify indefinite detention
should be forced to explain how they can claim that in light of this
crystal clear provision.
It is true, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, that both the Bush
and Obama administrations have argued that the 2001 AUMF implicitly
(i.e., silently) already vests the power of indefinite detention in
the President, and post-9/11 deferential courts have largely accepted
that view (just as the Bush DOJ argued that the 2001 AUMF implicitly
(i.e., silently) allowed them to eavesdrop on Americans without the
warrants required by law). That’s why the NDAA can state that nothing
is intended to expand the 2001 AUMF while achieving exactly that: because
the Executive and judicial interpretation being given to the 20o1 AUMF
is already so much broader than its language provides.
But this is the first time this power of indefinite detention is being
expressly codified by statute (there’s not a word about detention
powers in the 2001 AUMF). Indeed, as the ACLU and HRW both pointed out,
it’s the first time such powers are being codified in a statute
since the McCarthy era Internal Security Act of 1950, about which I
wrote yesterday.
Myth #2: The bill does not expand the scope of the War on Terror
as defined by the 2001 AUMF
This myth is very easily dispensed with. The scope of the war as defined
by the original 2001 AUMF was, at least relative to this new bill, quite
specific and narrow. Here’s the full extent of the power the original
AUMF granted:
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Under the
clear language of the 2001 AUMF, the President’s authorization
to use force was explicitly confined to those who (a) helped perpetrate
the 9/11 attack or (b) harbored the perpetrators. That’s it. Now
look at how much broader the NDAA is with regard to who can be targeted:
Section (1) is basically a re-statement of the 2001 AUMF. But Section
(2) is a brand new addition. It allows the President to target not only
those who helped perpetrate the 9/11 attacks or those who harbored them,
but also: anyone who “substantially supports” such groups
and/or “associated forces.” Those are extremely vague terms
subject to wild and obvious levels of abuse . This is a substantial
statutory escalation of the War on Terror and the President’s powers
under it, and it occurs more than ten years after 9/11, with Osama bin
Laden dead, and with the U.S. Government boasting that virtually all
Al Qaeda leaders have been eliminated and the original organization
(the one accused of perpetrating 9/11 attack) rendered inoperable.
It is true that both the Bush and Obama administration have long been
arguing that the original AUMF should be broadly “interpreted”
so as to authorize force against this much larger scope of individuals,
despite the complete absence of such language in that original AUMF.
That’s how the Obama administration justifies its ongoing bombing
of Yemen and Somalia and its killing of people based on the claim that
they support groups that did not even exist at the time of 9/11 –
i.e., they argue: these new post-9/11 groups we’re targeting are
“associated forces” of Al Qaeda and the individuals we’re
killing “substantially support” those groups. But this is
the first time that Congress has codified that wildly expanded definition
of the Enemy in the War on Terror. And all anyone has to do to see that
is compare the old AUMF with the new one in the NDAA.
Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill
This is simply false, at least when expressed so definitively and without
caveats. The bill is purposely muddled on this issue which is what is
enabling the falsehood.
There are two separate indefinite military detention provisions in this
bill. The first, Section 1021, authorizes indefinite detention for the
broad definition of “covered persons” discussed above in the
prior point. And that section does provide that “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.” So that section contains a disclaimer regarding
an intention to expand detention powers for U.S. citizens, but does
so only for the powers vested by that specific section. More important,
the exclusion appears to extend only to U.S. citizens “captured
or arrested in the United States” — meaning that the powers
of indefinite detention vested by that section apply to U.S. citizens
captured anywhere abroad (there is some grammatical vagueness on this
point, but at the very least, there is a viable argument that the detention
power in this section applies to U.S. citizens captured abroad).
But the next section, Section 1022, is a different story. That section
specifically deals with a smaller category of people than the broad
group covered by 1021: namely, anyone whom the President determines
is “a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force”
and “participated in the course of planning or carrying out an
attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition
partners.” For those persons, section (a) not only authorizes,
but requires (absent a Presidential waiver), that they be held “in
military custody pending disposition under the law of war.” The
section title is “Military Custody for Foreign Al Qaeda Terrorists,”
but the definition of who it covers does not exclude U.S. citizens or
include any requirement of foreignness.
That section — 1022 — does not contain the broad disclaimer
regarding U.S. citizens that 1021 contains. Instead, it simply says
that the requirement of military detention does not apply to U.S. citizens,
but it does not exclude U.S. citizens from the authority, the option,
to hold them in military custody. Here is what it says:
The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the
“requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals
accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory;
for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S
citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from
the requirement of military detention.
The most important point on this issue is the same as underscored in
the prior two points: the “compromise” reached by Congress
includes language preserving the status quo. That’s because the
Obama administration already argues that the original 2001 AUMF authorizes
them to act against U.S. citizens (obviously, if they believe they have
the power to target U.S. citizens for assassination, then they believe
they have the power to detain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants). The
proof that this bill does not expressly exempt U.S. citizens or those
captured on U.S. soil is that amendments offered by Sen. Feinstein providing
expressly for those exemptions were rejected. The “compromise”
was to preserve the status quo by including the provision that the bill
is not intended to alter it with regard to American citizens, but that’s
because proponents of broad detention powers are confident that the
status quo already permits such detention.
In sum, there is simply no question that this bill codifies indefinite
detention without trial (Myth 1). There is no question that it significantly
expands the statutory definitions of the War on Terror and those who
can be targeted as part of it (Myth 2). The issue of application to
U.S. citizens (Myth 3) is purposely muddled — that’s why Feinstein’s
amendments were rejected — and there is consequently no doubt this
bill can and will be used by the U.S. Government (under this President
or a future one) to bolster its argument that it is empowered to indefinitely
detain even U.S. citizens without a trial (NYT Editorial: “The
legislation could also give future presidents the authority to throw
American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial”;
Sen. Bernie Sanders: “This bill also contains misguided provisions
that in the name of fighting terrorism essentially authorize the indefinite
imprisonment of American citizens without charges”).
Even if it were true that this bill changes nothing when compared to
how the Executive Branch has been interpreting and exercising the powers
of the old AUMF, there are serious dangers and harms from having Congress
— with bipartisan sponsors, a Democratic Senate and a GOP House
— put its institutional, statutory weight behind powers previously
claimed and seized by the President alone. That codification entrenches
these powers. As the New York Times Editorial today put it: the bill
contains “terrible new measures that will make indefinite detention
and military trials a permanent part of American law.”
My final
message to you reader and to posterity.
"I will not be silent. I will not comply.
I will not drink the party coolaid, or sell my soul for some invitation
to some social party event.
Today December 17 2011, I denounce openly Congressman Trent Franks,
Sen. McCain, Sen. Kyl
and every other politicians democrat and republican that has voted for
this treasonous bill.
You are a disgrace of our Republic.
You are a disgrace of free Humanity.
You are a disgrace of our Founding Fathers.
You are a disgrace of the American People.
Shame on you. May God forgive you because I don't. And I won't."
I hope
you won't be silent. Use our First Amendment till you have it.
Posterity and God will judge our actions and inaction.
"All that is required for evil to flourish in the world is for
good men to do or say nothing'
Gianluca
Zanna
23:4
http://Zanna.US
Please spend few minutes of your time and see these documents and articles
that support all I have said.
the whole bill here http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1540/text
Myth busted: Yes, the NDAA does apply to Americans, and here’s the text that says so
Exclusive: Military to Designate U.S. Citizens as Enemy During Collapse
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/americans-face-guantanamo-detention-obama
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57343287/wh-oks-military-detention-of-terrorism-suspects/
http://news.yahoo.com/house-passes-662-billion-defense-bill-235908339.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-paul-defense-bill-establishes-martial-law-in-america.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/indefinite-detention-bill-heads-to-obamas-desk.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/40-members-of-congress-protest-indefinite-detention-bill.html
CAMP FEMA Now Hiring All Positions http://youtu.be/Hm_07WObzg0
