NDAA 2012 From Presidential Signing Statements to Domestic Irregular Warfare - Here's What I Know

 

Someone asked about NDAA 2012. Here's what I know about it and what you should as well.

Oh Lookie: Yet Another Batch of White Guy “Terrorists” (The New Batman Must Be Coming Out Soon)(archive)

(archived from May 19, 2012)

by Scott Creighton

Well, it would seem that the midnight raid in Chicago saved the day yet again, proving once more that we have to give up our freedoms and security and let the cops bust in our doors with no search warrant so that we can be safe from all those white male aged 23-35 middle class looking “commie faggot” terrorists. And once again, they were after our “Glorious Leader” just like zombie bin Laden was (according to that super secret intel). I guess they were “radicalized’ huh?

One week after a US District Court struck down the constitutionality of the provisions in the 2012 NDAA which allowed for the determination that the United States was part of the battlefield in the fictional “Global War on Terror” we have this: a new “terrorist” threat with 3 white guy perps, citizens of the United States.

Court Finds Homeland Battlefield Act of NDAA to be Unconstitutional (archive)

(archived from May 16, 2012)

by Scott Creighton

In a developing story, a U.S. District Judge, Katherine Forrest, has declared unconstitutional an extremely controversial part of the 2012 NDAA which declared that the entire world was part of the global battlefield in the still ongoing “Global War on Terror” which Barack Obama signed into law on Dec. 31st, 2011.

This is part of an ongoing lawsuit brought by Chris Hedges and other journalists and scholars who worried that the language of the Homeland Battlefield Act was purposefully vague and could ensnare journalists and activists in a military crackdown on terrorist organizations or those who support them (MeK anyone?) without them even knowing it was happening of that they were considered to be aiding the organizations simply by writing about them.

Obama Disavows Constitution, Does an End Run Around Congress With NDAA Signing Statement (archive)

(archived from January 1, 2012)

by Scott Creighton

“I taught the constitution for 10 years. I believe in the constitution and I will obey the constitution of the United States. We are not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around congress.” Candidate Obama, May 2008

In May of 2008 when he was running for office, candidate Obama answered a question from the audience about the use of presidential signing statements. This is what he said:

“We have a government designed by the founders with checks and balances. You don’t want a president who’s too powerful a congress that’s too powerful, or a court system that’s too powerful. Everyone has their own role. Congress’s job is too pass legislation. The president can veto it or he can sign it. But what George Bush has been trying to do as part of his effort to accumulate more power in the presidency, is… he’s been saying “well I can basically change what congress passed by attaching a letter saying “I don’t agree with this part or I don’t agree with that part… I’m gonna choose to interpret it this way or that way“”… that’s not part of his power but this is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he’s going along. I disagree with that. I taught the constitution for 10 years. I believe in the constitution and I will obey the constitution of the United States. We are not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around congress.”  Barack Obama, 2008

When President Obama went back on his word and signed the NDAA of 2012, he issued a signing statement which does exactly, word for word, what candidate Obama chastised President Bush for doing nearly 4 years ago. His signing statement, aside from issuing a toothless platitude about not using military detention for US citizens, lays out section by section how the president intends to interpret various provisions of the legislation passed by congress. Obama’s signing statement actually says almost word for word “I don’t agree with this part or I don’t agree with that part… I’m gonna choose to interpret it this way or that way“

S. 1867 NDAA 2012 – The Udall Solution is the Threat (archive)

(archived from November 29, 2011)

by Scott Creighton

There has been a great deal of debate these last few days as to whether or not NDAA 2012 (pdf) actually mandates the use of the U.S. military in policing actions here on U.S. soil, in direct contradiction to Posse Comitatus. Republican, Liberal, “Progressive“, and Libertarian websites are lit up over this issue and yet most of them are saying the exact same thing. Ironically, they are all saying the same thing that the Obama administration is saying and that is that NDAA 2012 needs to be changed.  Obama has threatened to VETO it (can you imaging the seated president VETOing the defense spending bill this close to an election?) because it will inhibit his ability to fight the Global War on Terror (aka The Global Free Market Wars).

How is it that so many “dissident” sites and organizations are taking the exact same position as the Obama administration, the first administration by the way who claims the authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad without due process of law and the same administration who has refused to prosecute the obvious war-crimes of the previous administration? Remember, there have been more whistle-blowers arrested under Obama’s rule than any other administration in our history.

The fact is, that is what controlled opposition sites do. They are usually free to discuss a wide range of topics, using them to garner the trust of the reader, but when something really important comes along, they all line up on the same side and in this case, as is usually the case, that is the side of the corrupt administration.

Udall Amendment SA 1112 To INCLUDE U.S. Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens in Military Detentions (archive)

(archived from November 27, 2011)

by Scott Creighton

In the original NDAA of 2012, the text clearly states in the disputed sections 1031 and 1032 that the modifications do not seek to extend the powers of the executive branch and that the mandated military detention of terrorism suspects DOES NOT extend to U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens. I have shown this to be true of the bill in two separate articles, here and here.

This morning I wrote about a Mr. Anders from the ACLU who is apparently misleading the American public in an effort to get the Udall amendment passed which will, as I clearly showed, provide the Obama administration the opportunity to submit their own version of that section of the bill allowing for them to expand the powers of the executive branch to do exactly what Anders mistakenly claims the bill already does.

As Written Sections 1031 and 1032 of S. 1867 Do NOT Apply to U.S. Citizens (archive)

(archived from November 27, 2011)

by Scott Creighton

“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.” section 1031 NDAA 2012 page 360

“The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” section 1032 NDAA 2012 page 362

“…modifying or expanding the authority of the Executive Branch to carry out detention and prosecution of covered persons.” Udall amendment replacing above language

All across the “internets” liberal and libertarians alike are screaming about sections 1031 and 1032 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (pdf). They are breathlessly claiming they it will give the military the ability to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens under the law of war clause. These claims, this internet panic, is based ENTIRELY on an article from the ACLU’s Chris Anders which wrongly makes the claim and then strangely suggests that we all get behind Mark Udall’s proposed amendment to the bill.

In Mr. Anders’ article, he makes the mistaken claim right in the title; “Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window“

First thing to notice about Mr. Anders’ article is that he makes absolutely no attempt to link the readers to the actual text of the bill which he bases his panic inducing headline. Instead what he does is repeatedly link the reader to his “oppose section 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA” action page. I count 9 links to his action page which are cleverly disguised as “Udall Amendment” and other things that would make the reader think would be links to things which support his argument, but they don’t. Nowhere in the article does Mr. Anders supply a link to the Udall amendment which he expects you to support, sight unseen I suppose.

The Real Tragedy of the NDAA 2012 (archive)

(archived from December 23, 2011)

by Scott Creighton

The NDAA of 2012 generated a great deal of discussion and rightly so, but for the wrong reasons.

No one likes to think that the evil “big guberment” is going to kick in your doors in the dead of night like they do in Afghanistan and Iraq and take away all that “liberty” you have, but the reality is they’ve been doing that for quite sometime, just not to the young, middle-class white guys of the libertarian persuasion… so now of course we have to sound the alarm.