7 shades of void "Have You Heard The News Today" NDAA 2012 Mix
Featuring Alyona Minkovski
Lawrence Wilkerson
Max Igan
Barack Hussein Obama
Donald Rumsfeld
Adolf Hitler
http://www.infowars.com/the-inauguration-of-police-state-usa-2012-obama-signs...
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-paul-calls-national-defense-authorization-act...
With minimal media debate, at a time when Americans were celebrating the New Year with their loved ones, the "National Defense Authorization Act " H.R. 1540 was signed into law by Obama. The actual signing took place on the 31st of December.
According to Obama's "signing statement", the threat of Al Qaeda to the Security of the Homeland constitutes a justification for repealing fundamental rights and freedoms, with a stroke of the pen.
The Lessons of History
This New Year's Eve December 31, 2011 signing of the NDAA will indelibly go down as a landmark in American history.
If we are to put this in a comparative historical context, the relevant provisions of the NDAA HR 1540 are, in many regards, comparable to those contained in the "Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State", commonly known as the "Reichstag Fire Decree" (Reichstagsbrandverordnung) enacted in Germany under the Weimar Republic on 27 February 1933 by President (Field Marshal) Paul von Hindenburg.
Implemented in the immediate wake of the Reichstag Fire (which served as a pretext), this February 1933 decree was used to repeal civil liberties including the right of Habeas Corpus.
Article of the February 1933 decree suspended civil liberties under the pretext of protecting democracy: "Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of association and assembly, 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 rights are permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed." (Art. 1, emphasis added)
Democracy was nullified in Germany through the signing of a presidential decree. The Reichstag Fire decree was followed in March 1933 by "The Enabling Act" ( Ermächtigungsgesetz) which allowed (or enabled) the Nazi government of Chancellor Adolf Hitler to invoke de facto dictatorial powers. These two decrees enabled the Nazi regime to introduce legislation which was in overt contradiction with the 1919 Weimar Constitution.
The following year, upon the death of president Hindenburg in 1934, Hitler "declared the office of President vacant" and took over as Fuerer, the combined function's of Chancellor and Head of State.
Obama's New Year's Gift to the American People
To say that January 1st 2012 is "A Sad Day for America" is a gross understatement.
The signing of NDAA (HR 1540) into law is tantamount to the militarization of law enforcement, the repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Inauguration in 2012 of Police State USA.
The NDAA is "Obama's New Year's Gift" to the American People. ...
Michel Chossudovsky, Montreal, Canada, January, 1st 2012
Today, January 1st, 2012, our thoughts are with the American people.
Many thanks to Max Igan & Alex Jones
http://www.youtube.com/user/aodscarecrow
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel
The relevant sections of the bill are 1021 and 1022.
* Section 1021 asserts the President’s authority to arrest suspected (not convicted) terrorists and gives him the option to choose whether or not they even get a trial, and if so, what kind of trial.
* Section 1022 requires that a certain class of terrorist get no trial. Instead they must be held in military prisons, for as long as this President, or any future President desires.
SECTION 1021
Section 1021 is very expansive in its reach. It “includ[es] any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”
* Who is “any person?”
* What is a “belligerent act?”
* What is “direct support?”
One could be safe in assuming these words mean whatever a creatively-minded prosecutor, a flexible judge, and an ignorant jury define them to mean — except that, under this act, one might never get as far as a court hearing.
These terms will be defined by the bureaucrats in power.
They could be used against political opponents.
1021 has no exceptions. There’s not even a hint of an exception. Remember, that section gave the President the authority to arrest you and a set of options on how you were to be handled. These choices are completely divorced from the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments, as well as the Treason provisions of Article III. The President’s new alternatives are:
1. Detention without trial by the military
2. Trial by a military commission
3. Trial by some other court of the President’s choosing
4. Shipping you off to a foreign jurisdiction
SECTION 1022
1022 is a requirement — a binding mandate upon the President. Obama threatened to veto the bill, but only because he feared 1022 would restrict his power too much.
In the final version of the bill, after a public storm started to erupt, the title of the section was changed to indicate that it only applied to “foreign al-Qaeda terrorists.” However, titles are not normally considered part of the law but merely summary descriptions to the reader of a bill.
But this title is especially ironic, because it’s this section that includes the so-called exemption for American citizens. Why would you need to exempt American citizens from a section of law that applies to “foreign al-Qaeda terrorists?”
The answer is because the section applies to any kind of “terrorist,” domestic or foreign, no matter what the title says.
And here’s the so-called exemption, with the key word highlighted:
The REQUIREMENT to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
That means that military custody, without a trial, is mandated by law, but that the President, at his discretion or by written policy, may issue a waiver on the basis that a person is an American citizen.
If this provision was a true safeguard for American citizens, then the line would’ve been written like this:
Military custody of citizens of the United States is still prohibited under this act.
The difference is critical. It’s a requirement that can be waived at discretion, as opposed to a prohibition.
Cf. http://blogsmithconsulting.blogspot.com/2012/01/update-obama-i-can-violate-civil.html
http://blogsmithconsulting.blogspot.com/2011/12/coming-soon-americans-in-gitmo.html
Posts
