Divided We Stand: NDAA 2012

Posted: April 10, 2012 in Fraud, Politics
Tags: ,

By: Johnathan Douglas
Nov 27, 2011

The Voice of Reason: I don’t think the executive branch should be perjuring themselves and war profiteering or murdering without due process of the law …  “Innocent until PROVEN Guilty beyond all REASONABLE doubt!” 

Congress: You know what? … WE should IMMEDIATELY Draft legislation that makes it … “Still illegal” (High fives and lol’s) …

Maybe after the next election?

The “War on Terror” … Its very name conjures up horrific images of torture, persecution, and corruption of power … Will we ever unravel the full twisted history of these new special privileges established by “Men” to root out heresy on demand? …

One might expect them to honor the law and barring that, the laws of nature … Unfortunately, this is not the case, as they repeatedly violate the most basic principles in an attempt to dismiss while propping up wild speculation to the most basic question … “Innocent or Guilty?” … Had King George himself been able to exercise all the powers that the US Government claims today, the original “Founding Fathers” would’ve been Predator droned BEFORE they left .… 

I acknowledge, of course, that Constitutional law surrounding executive power is contested … What I urge those of Constitutional opinion to remember is even IF our governing document DID permit all the powers the president currently assumes, that still wouldn’t make the exercise prudent …

Declared legal or not, it isn’t difficult to see the potential for abuse in an endless war where the battlefield is everywhere on earth and the enemy is whoever the executive branch retroactively says it is … In a situation where it never ends because sometime someone somewhere could possibly maybe turn terrorist and blow something up … Someday …. 

S. 1867 the Department of Defense Authorization Act: It’s More Convoluted Than You Think

By: Scott Creighton
Nov 26, 2011

Indefinitely detaining terror suspects in military facilities and prosecuting them via military tribunals: Let’s make one thing perfectly clear – according to the letter of the law and the language of S. 1867, this does not apply to US citizens

Understanding the Bill itself and the Debate that is taking shape –

Part A –  the bill

Right now there is a contentious debate quietly taking place in the halls of congress behind mahogany doors, armed guards, and the all too common concrete barricades erected after 9/11. The corporate media is doing their part by completely ignoring what is taking place regardless of the fact that the proposed legislation will have unprecedented constitutional implications no matter how it turns out.

At the heart of this debate lies several sections of  Senate Bill 1867, the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (pdf) as proposed by Carl Levin (D. Mich). The sections under debate: namely Section 1031, 1032, 1033, and a few subsequent amendments which have been added in light of an ongoing internal debate between congress and the executive branch (Obama administration).

(Some dissident news sites are using the earlier version of the bill, S. 1235,  to drum up more fear mongering and thus page views and personal revenue for themselves. The earlier version of the bill is from June of this year and there have been many revisions since then. The link I provide above is to the current version of the bill (dated Nov. 14th and read into the senate record that day) and the link to the amendments are also the current amendments being discussed today on the floor of the senate. These same dissident sites also cite a letter from the ACLU to bolster credibility their credibility. However, that letter from the ACLU is dated July 1st, 2011 and many of the main issues they bring up have been addressed already.)

At issue in these sections is:

  • the determination that the United States is part of the battlefield in the ongoing (albeit fake) Global War on Terror
  • mandatory detention of terrorist suspects by the military
  • the process by which detainees like those at Gitmo are transferred to other countries (renditioned for purposes of interrogation, ect.)

This one is a hard one to wrap your head around. With the players taking what would appear to be opposite positions on this bill that one would normally think they would take and what, at least on the surface, appears to be an Obama administration threat to veto the bill because it would limit their ability to effectively prosecute the Global War on Terror, we have to take a very close look at this legislation before we jump out and follow fear-mongering sites and start robo calling our senators.

With that in mind, let’s take a look at the actual language of the legislation:

Senate Bill 1867, the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012  page 361 (emphasis added)

3 SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
(a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF
WAR.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

What does this section do? According to some, this section forces the United States to detain suspected terrorists, here in the United States, in military detention facilities pursuant to the “law of war”.  Many of these websites out there claim that this means that US citizens, under this act, can and will be detained by the military, in direct contradiction to the Bill of Rights and Posse Comitatus. Though this may have been an accurate reading of S. 1235, the earlier version of this bill, I can safely say, it is not entirely accurate as the bill stands now.

Let’s read a little further.  Notice the part above which states “Except as provided in paragraph (4)”? Let’s read paragraph (4) as it is being submitted (and not the July version):

Senate Bill 1867, the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012  page 362 (emphasis added)

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.

—The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.
15 (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
16 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.

So, according to the letter of the law and the language of it, this does not apply to US citizens.That is an important distinction yet it is still not altogether reassuring since it may only be a matter of time before that language is struck from the bill or future legislation amends it to include US citizens.

What is unclear is whether or not globalist Hillary Clinton, in consultation with Leon Penetta, former head of the criminal Central Intelligence Agency, can receive a waiver of this section of the bill automatically by simply requesting it. The waiver may be to force a foreign terror suspect, caught on US soil, to be prosecuted and detained in the civilian system as opposed to using her ability to wave this section thus allowing civilians to be detained and tried in military tribunals. This is part of what I call the convoluted aspect of this legislation.

Section 1033 is also a hot topic for discussion. At issue there is the subject of what is commonly referred to as “extraordinary rendition” where detained suspects are sent to other nations to be tortured so that our hands are effectively cleansed of the criminal behavior. Section 1033 looks to force the Obama administration to report to congress their intentions to rendition a prisoner 30 days prior to that transfer.

Senate Bill 1867, the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012  page 365 (emphasis added)

SEC. 1033. REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATIONS RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF DETAINEES AT UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA, TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND OTHER FOREIGN ENTITIES.

6 (a) CERTIFICATION REQUIRED PRIOR TO TRANSFER.—
8 (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (d), the Secretary of Defense may not use any amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2012 to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo to the custody or control of the individual’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity unless the Secretary submits to Congress the certification described in subsection (b) not later than 30 days before the transfer of the individual.

Again, there are several loopholes written into this section and the most glaring is that it restricts the use of funds, not the actual transfer of the prisoner. If Leon Panetta were to tap some of his secret CIA fund resources now that the Pentagon is simply a branch of the CIA, then all’s well I suppose. But on the surface this means that tax-payer dollars won’t be spent on massively overpriced contracts to rendition detainees to “foreign entities” to torture them.

That’s progress, huh?

Part B – the debate

On capital hill they have been going back and forth with the administration since June over this bill. Carl Levin recently submitted to congress a letter in which he reiterates the president and his adviser’s position on this legislation. It’s well known that the president and his cronies have had problems with this bill and these provisions in particular. What’s at stake to them is the continuation of the broken system as is.

A Fox News host recently explained to his viewers that the FBI’s 17 supposed successes at thwarting terrorist plots in the US since 9/11 were completely made up by the FBI. They were planned and staged by the FBI in what could only be described as self-serving entrapment operations. I mention the Fox News host who talked about this only because up until recently the right-wing part of the country refused to believe that there was anything made-up about the ongoing War on Terror. Several people, including myself, have been pointing that out for years and in many cases as the “terrorist” plots themselves were developing. Take for instance the latest thwarted plot created by the NYPD Intelligence division.

I mention these things only because it would appear that the Obama administration worries that if Section 1032 were to be implemented as it was first written, it would remove from the equation the FBI investigations and agencies like Bloomberg’s “Intelligence division”. It would also mean that after “ongoing” investigations were brought to a halt via an arrest, the suspect would then be handed over to the military, and thus the people who wrote the plot themselves would no longer have control of the suspect, who might be inclined to tell the military what really happened.  Obama and his senior advisers (ie- Clinton) are apparently strongly opposed to that.

The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects. This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President’s authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals. Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets. We have spent ten years since September 11, 2001, breaking down the walls between intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals; Congress should not now rebuild those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult. Specifically, the provision would limit the flexibility of our national security professionals to choose, based on the evidence and the facts and circumstances of each case, which tool for incapacitating dangerous terrorists best serves our national security interests. The waiver provision fails to address these concerns, particularly in time-sensitive operations in which law enforcement personnel have traditionally played the leading role. These problems are all the more acute because the section defines the category of individuals who would be subject to mandatory military custody by substituting new and untested legislative criteria for the criteria the Executive and Judicial branches are currently using for detention under the AUMF in both habeas litigation and military operations. Such confusion threatens our ability to act swiftly and decisively to capture, detain, and interrogate terrorism suspects, and could disrupt the collection of vital intelligence about threats to the American people.
Rather than fix the fundamental defects of section 1032 or remove it entirely, as the Administration and the chairs of several congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters have advocated…” Carl Levin

Levin goes on to explain that anything considered limiting to the president in the conducting of his Global War on Terror fraud will be vetoed by the president. (emphasis included by Levin)

“Any bill that challenges or constrains the President’s critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the Nation would prompt the President’s senior advisers to recommend a veto.” Carl Levin

The debate goes on and currently there are several amendments to the bill that are being bandied about in the senate.

Part C – conclusion

It should be difficult for any rational thinking American at this point to flat out reject any bill that the president claims would limit his ability to conduct the fraudulent Global War on Terror without serious scrutiny. Take note that the Obama administration is not opposed to these contentious sections of the bill on the grounds that they infringe on the personal freedoms of the American people, but rather he doesn’t like them because they limit the powers of the unconstitutional secret police state that has been carefully crafted since 9/11. That’s a big difference and an important one. It’s no wonder that this serious issue is getting next to no face time on the so-called “progressive” news outlets across the country.

At the same time, it’s easy to see where this could be going.

Over the years I have warned readers via this website and other postings that neoliberalism is coming to America. I think most people understand that now having seen the beginning stages of it after the economic hit-men at Goldman Sachs and the Federal Reserve decimated our economy so they could reshape it into their fascist/corporatist model.

One thing that I have tried repeatedly to explain to people is that the evils we inflict on others will come home to roost here in America. To that end, simply understand that in each and every nation that is neoliberalized, by force or by stealth, what follows is always the same; dissenters on the left are always declared enemies of the state and they are always rounded up and arrested in order to remove from the targeted population a true opposition viewpoint that will, in time, become more and more influential as the general population comes to understand the true nature of what is happening to their country. This is a requirement and a mainstay of the CIA backed neoliberal dictatorships over the course of the last 60 years or so from the Shah of Iran’s SAVAK to the Argentinian Death Squads, to the wholesale atrocities happening in India to this day, this is what always happens. Always.

It will happen here just like it happened here back in the early 1900s.

Any bill that brings us closer to that unfortunate destiny should and must be stopped. No one wants to see military strike teams kicking in doors down the street at 3 am in the morning like they do in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But I am not exactly sure that this bill provides for that. What I am sure of is that the Obama administration desires more freedoms at this point in their efforts to conduct their fraudulent war. Forcing another revision of this bill may in fact provide the administration with the opportunity to re-write those sections giving them the ability to detain citizens and foreign nationals alike and that would certainly be no victory on our part as that we would become beggars to our own “Elected” demise.

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

By: Scott Creighton
November 27, 2011

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.

Why wouldn’t Mr. Anders of the ACLU want to link his readers to the actual text of S. 1867? Why wouldn’t he simply copy and past section 1032, the section which supposedly gives the military the right to arrest and detain U.S. citizens, so that his readers could read the actual text of the bill and make an informed decision for themselves? Why doesn’t he provide a link to the Udall amendment? Judge for yourselves….

Senate Bill 1867, the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012  page 361 (emphasis added)

3 SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
(a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF
WAR.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.

—The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.
(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.

That is why Mr. Anders of the ACLU does NOT provide a single link to the actual text of the bill, because it clearly states that section 1032 does NOT extend to citizens of the United States. It could not be clearer in that regard but apparently Mr. Anders either can’t read or is deliberately misleading a large number of people about this section of the bill.

Why would Mr. Anders do that?

As I pointed out yesterday and as Carl Levin wrote about in his letter to congress a week ago, the president and his senior advisers will VETO the bill as written because he thinks it will unduly inhibit his ability to fight the fraudulent “Global War on Terror”

Turns out that is exactly the argument that Mark Udell makes when he talks about replacing section 1032 with his amendment, the amendment that Mr. Anders seems to want us to call our senators in support of.

“Mr. President, I filed an amendment, 1107, that would take a look at what is proposed in the NDAA.  Now, we have a solemn obligation, Mr. President, to pass a National Defense Authorization Act, but we also have a solemn obligation to make sure that those who are fighting the war on terror have the best, most flexible, most powerful tools possible.  And I have to say again – and I will say it more than two times in my remarks – that I’m worried that these changes that we’re about to push through would actually  hurt our national security…

these provisions disrupt the executive branch’s capacity to enforce the law and impose unwise and unwarranted restrictions on our ability to aggressively combat international terrorism.  In so doing, they inject legal uncertainty and ambiguity that may only complicate the military’s operations and practices.

Now, Mr. President, I’m not the only one who has serious concerns.  The Secretary of Defense has urged us to oppose these new provisions, both the chairman of the intelligence and judiciary committee strongly oppose them, and the president’s team is recommending a veto.  These are people whose opinions should be carefully considered before we put these new proposals into our legal framework.  In the statement of administration policy, the White House states – quote – “we have spent 10 years since September 11, 2001, breaking down the walls between intelligence, military and law enforcement professionals.  Congress should not now rebuild those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult.

Those are striking words, Mr. President, that should give us all pause as we face – it seems to me – a bit of a rush to submit these untested and legally controversial restrictions on our ability to prosecute terrorists.  Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent to place the entire statement of administration policy in the record.” Mark Udall, floor of the Senate

So what is this Udall amendment that the ACLU and apparently President Obama and ex-CIA chief Leon Pannetta want us to accept? What does it do?

Quite simply, the Udall amendment will remove the wording of section 1032 which clearly states that it does not apply to U.S. citizens, and in it’s place substitute language which calls for the head of the Department of Homeland Security, Hillary Clinton, Leon Pannetta, and Eric Holder to get together and craft legislation, on their own, to submit back to congress which effectively does the same thing that section 1032 does, but seemingly may or may not actually apply to U.S. citizens.

That’s right… Udall’s proposal suggests letting globalist Hillary Clinton and her puppets rewrite something akin to the John Yoo torture memos. As written, section 1031 specifically states that it does NOT extend the powers of the executive branch under current interpretations of the war powers act whereas Mr. Udall’s proposed amendment clearly DOES provide for that end result.

That’s why Mr. Anders doesn’t supply a link to the text of that legislation either.

(a) In General.–Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall, in consultation with appropriate officials in the Executive Office of the President, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Attorney General, submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report setting forth the following:

(1) A statement of the position of the Executive Branch on the appropriate role for the Armed Forces of the United States in the detention and prosecution of covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)).

(2) A statement and assessment of the legal authority asserted by the Executive Branch for such detention and prosecution.

(3) A statement of any existing deficiencies or anticipated deficiencies in the legal authority for such detention and prosecution.

(c) Congressional Action.–Each of the appropriate committees of Congress may, not later than 45 days after receipt of the report required by subsection (a), hold a hearing on the report, and shall, within 45 days of such hearings, report to Congress legislation, if such committee determines legislation is appropriate and advisable, modifying or expanding the authority of the Executive Branch to carry out detention and prosecution of covered persons.

The Udall amendment which we are being asked to support by Mr. Anders of the ACLU would actually provide the opportunity for the expansion of presidential authority to perhaps include U.S. citizens being detained and arrested by the military. It calls for a group of globalist puppets to put together a proposal and to show the legal authority by which they base their claim for expanded powers. This is why it will be supported by the Obama administration.

It should not be supported by us.

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

By: Scott Creighton
Nov 27, 2011

UPDATE: working link to congressional record page S7728 which details Udall’s SA1107 and SA1112

Sen. Udall is attempting to provide the act of congress needed to by-pass the Posse Comitatus Act

and the ACLU wants you to help him do it

In direct contradiction to the bill as written, one of Udall’s amendments to s. 1867 will include language that makes it clear that military detentions “extends to citizens of the United States and lawful resident aliens of the United States

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.

I found on this official website (please see update for a link to where you can read the amendments yourself) yet another amendment submitted by Mark Udall, SA 1112. SA 1112 is a direct attempt to defuse the original language of the bill which states clearly that military detentions will NOT apply to U.S. citizens. Below is the actual text of SA 1112 submitted by Mark Udall:

 SA 1112. Mr. UDALL of Colorado submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1867, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of section 1031, add the following:

(f) Extension to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens.–The authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons under this section extends to citizens of the United States and lawful resident aliens of the United States, except to the extent prohibited by the Constitution of the United States.

It’s not the Constitution of the United States that keeps the military from arresting and detaining citizens, it’s Posse Comitatus, which isn’t mentioned by Sen. Udall at all.

“Contrary to popular belief, the Act does not prohibit members of the Army from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain “law and order“; it simply requires that any orders to do so must originate with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress.”  Wikipedia

Sen. Udall’s amendment would do just that, provide an act of congress that sets forth the ability for the military to police, arrest, and detain U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, something that is strictly prohibited by Posse Comitatus except in the event of an act of congress.

This makes Sen. Udall’s intentions perfectly clear; he intends, one way or the other, to provide the opportunity for the executive branch of government to extend it’s powers to include the ability to use military resources to detain U.S. citizens. This also makes Mr. Anders’ letter from the ACLU a complete and total fraud.

UPDATE: It has been brought to my attention that the link to the congressional record site where Udall’s senate amendment 1112 is published timed out. I don’t know why that site does that, but if you go to this link and scroll down to page S7728 and click on that link, it will take you to the congressional site which published Udall’s amendments.

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

By: Scott Creighton
Nov 29, 2011

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.

So what is the end result and how do they intend to get there? Does the NDAA 2012 actually provide the needed congressional act to allow the president to use the military to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens or did someone write into it constitutional protections that the administration rejects? Is the famed Udall amendment there to save us or to help the president and his senior advisers get what they want in spite of the language of NDAA 2012? Are sites like David Swanson’s and Prison Planet actually helping the Obama administration set in motion a congressional act which will grossly expand the powers of the unitary executive in spite of their best interests or because of them?

We will attempt to address these questions and explain how misdirection and left cover are being carefully crafted in this case to get opponents of totalitarian rule to openly call for it.

The desired end result

Barack Obama is not going to VETO this bill because it threatens to impede on the constitutional protections of U.S. citizens, as Ralph Lopez dishonestly implies over at David Swanson’s website. Barack Obama is threatening to VETO the bill because this contentious section doesn’t go far enough to provide him and his administration the ability to use the military to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens. He also rejects the idea that the current system of FBI and NYPD Intelligence Division task forces will be left out of the loop; restrained from doing what they do and that is produce thwarted “terrorist” plots out of loner hapless morons and the ever-present FBI or police “informants”.

The best of both worlds, and apparently what the Mark Udall amendment provides for, is a system by which the administration can use the military to arrest and detain and TRY U.S. civilians in military tribunals where they can keep the so-called “evidence” against the suspect a state secret due to issues of “national security”. That’s especially important now because as we look at the last fake terrorist case drummed up by Michael Bloomberg and his Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, the case was so completely manufactured that the FBI and the Department of Justice wouldn’t touch it with a ten foot pole. Were that case to have been under military jurisdiction, that wouldn’t have happened and the likes of Bloomberg and Kelly would have been spared even further embarrassment like Keith Olbermann demanding their resignations for fabricating a terrorist plot against New York.

Take a look at the case of Jose Padilla. Here is a guy who was arrested in a similar situation, a case against him was fabricated by FBI informants, and he was held under the Bush regime as an “enemy combatant” for 3 and a half years without trial or even real access to a lawyer. He was kept in conditions that observers and military officials would later describe as torture.

Eventually the Second Circuit court determined:

“Declaring that without clear Congressional approval (per 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a)) President Bush cannot detain an American citizen arrested in the United States and away from a zone of combat as an “illegal enemy combatant“, the court ordered that Padilla be released from the military brig within 30 days.” Wiki

And they went further in their verdict:

the President lacked inherent constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief to detain American citizens on American soil outside a zone of combat”. …  The extraordinary government power to curb civil rights and liberties during crisis periods, such as times of war, lies with Congress and not the President. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress, and not the President, the power to suspend the right of habeas corpus during a period of rebellion or invasion. Wiki

Padilla’s case was transferred to a civilian court and he was convicted in a kangaroo court but the tragedy for the administration was that in civilian court the evidence is a matter of public record, and therefore it’s weak and potentially criminal nature (entrapment) was there for all to see (which made future frame-ups more difficult)

Now we seem to have an attempt, an over reaching attempt, to set into law that very same constitutional action which will allow for the president and his administration to choose which court system is best to try which supposed “terrorists”. They will use the civilian courts if the evidence can withstand the light of day and they will simply shift it over to military jurisdiction if not. This is apparently what the Obama administration wants and will VETO anything that doesn’t provide for that end result.

How do they get there?

It is clear that the NDAA 2012 provides for redefining U.S. soil and the entire rest of the world as a part of the battle field in the Global War on Terror (a “combat zone” as explained above in the Padilla finding). Though it is overreaching and must be stricken from the bill, it is not the real point of contention (though I suggest it should be and wonder why so few “dissident” sites make that argument)

What is also clear (even though people like Mr. Anders of the ACLU and Mr. Watson of Prison Planet argue against it without providing any real facts to back them up) is that Carl Levin (a progressive democrat) is the ACTUAL author of the bill (not John McCain… look it up) and he deliberately put into the bill a clause which CLEARLY STATES that U.S. citizens are not included in the provision providing for military detention.

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

Both Anders and Watson have disingenuously argued that people should not be confused about the bill, even though the language is right there for all to read. They both claim that your lying eyes are deceiving you.

Watson claims that regardless of the language of the bill the big bad government will do whatever they want to anyway in spite of the law. This flies in the face of legal precedent set in the Padilla case and the subsequent issues with the drummed up “terrorist” cases ever since. If that is the case and the language of any law is really meaningless, then why argue this case at all? Obviously Watson is reaching.

Watson also goes a bit further in his backhanded support of totalitarian government when he makes the following statement: “The “battlefield” provision of the NDAA is nothing new, it is merely an updating of existing policy that has been applied to American citizens on numerous occasions over the last decade.” That is absolutely untrue as I have shown with the Circuit Court finding in the Padilla case which is also supported by the fact that the Obama administration made a clear distinction between U.S. citizens abroad, off U.S. soil, and those here at home in his famous announcement that he can and will authorize the extra-judicial murder of citizens… ABROAD.. and not on U.S. soil.

Paul Joseph Watson could not be more mistaken about the aspect of this bill that declares that U.S. soil is part of the battlefield. That clause defines the battlefield and thus sets the stage for the Udall amendment which could make us all “enemy combatants” And like I said before, it is extremely curious that Paul Joseph Watson does that.

As for Mr. Anders, the ACLU related DC based mouth piece, I wrote earlier that it is very strange that he put out this dramatic call to action and yet he didn’t link ONCE to either the NDAA 2012 nor the Udall amendment which he dishonestly suggests as a fix for the problem.

Anders has gone out of his way to convince people that it’s the Udall amendment that we need to protect us. He actually lies to his readers and still provides not one single quote to prove his point except a quotation from Lindsey Graham who himself has proven time and time again that he will do whatever it takes to turn this country into an authoritarian dictatorship.

In an update to his original article, Mr. Anders has now addressed those of us who actually READ the documents (though he and the ACLU never replied to my emails asking them about this curious lack of documentation in Mr. Anders’ work) and his response is even less accurate that his first article and again, he makes no effort to prove his argument with the text of either bill.

At first he claims that his readers shouldn’t pay attention to those who raise questions about the actual language of NDAA 2012 simply because he says so, and then he goes on to misrepresent a passage of the questionable section of the bill without providing the text of it so his readers can decide for themselves. This of course is what he has done throughout the article.

Anders actually admits there is a clause that states that military detentions will not extend to citizens of the United States. He admits that.

There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill)…” Mr. Anders ACLU

But then Anders goes on to say that it will not keep American citizens from being detained because the clause, the exemption for U.S. citizens, has to do with section 1032 not 1031 which authorizes the use of the military to detain people in the war on terror.

This is beyond dishonest.

Section 1032 defines military detention and who may or may not be detained pursuant to section 1031 which authorizes it. It couldn’t be more clear and if Mr. Anders were to provide his readers with the link to the document, then most would see that (and obviously many like myself sought out the document ourselves)

In fact, Mark Udall’s amendment SA1112 would actually add a line to section 1031 which states that the section would extend to U.S. citizens. How’s that for obvious?

SA1112 – Udall amendment – “…The authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons under this section extends to citizens of the United States and lawful resident aliens of the United States…except to the extent prohibited by the Constitution of the United States

Well the only thing in the constitution that keeps citizens from being detained by the military is the fact that it claims it would take an act of congress to allow such a thing to take place… and guess what Mark Udall’s amendment is? So the extent to which it is prohibited by the constitution would be nullified by the act itself.

The Udall solution

Mark Udall has crafted two horrible amendments which the ACLU, David Swanson, Paul Joseph Watson, and various other shills are pushing as the way to “protect” our civil liberties. Udall himself explains why he is pressing his amendments by quoting the White House to start with…

“we have spent 10 years since September 11, 2001, breaking down the walls between intelligence, military and law enforcement professionals.  Congress should not now rebuild those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult.“ Mark Udall quoting the White House position on NDAA 2012

“… these provisions disrupt the executive branch’s capacity to enforce the law and impose unwise and unwarranted restrictions on our ability to aggressively combat international terrorism.” Mark Udall

The Udall solution is to set aside section 1031 and 1032 and allow for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, the head of the NSA , the head of the Department of Homeland Security, and Leon Panetta (former CIA head and now Sec. of Defense) to get together and craft language that they think will better serve their “war on terror”

Does anyone think Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta are going to keep the part of the bill that exempts U.S. citizens from military detention? I don’t.  and I can’t see how someone like Mr. Udall would, unless of course he is just doing his part to help provide a service for the globalists.

Unlike Mr. Anders and Mr. Watson, I wish to provide you the full text of the two controversial amendments offered by Mr. Udall. Take a look for yourself and see if you can understand what Udall and Anders are doing under the cloak of “left cover”

After reading these and the actual text of the NDAA 2012, after reading the dishonest arguments made for supporting the Obama administration’s desire to rewrite NDAA 2012, it is my sincere hope that people come to understand what is actually happening here. What seems to have happened is that Mr. Levin did not want to be the one who handed over the United States to a military rule and the current administration is trying to expand on their unconstitutional powers by having those limits put in by Levin removed under cover. Whether or not people like Swanson, Watson, Anders and others are simply mistaken or whether they are deliberately misleading their readers is hard to say, however I think it’s a lot easier to form an opinion on Anders.

In the end, Anders is left with nothing more than a quote from a war-monger supporting NDAA 2012 as his only “proof” that it does what he claims it does. Who do you think that war monger actually serves? Don’t you think it is in his best interests to pretend to support the bill so that the other, more dangerous amendments are accepted? It’s not hard to figure out… pretend to support something so that the left will rally against it. Right?

Either way we must not support the Udall solutions which will clearly pave the way to removing the restrictions Levin put into place and allow for the administration to dramatically expand the powers of their office to include the ability to arrest U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

Below is the text of Udall amendment SA1112

 SA 1112. Mr. UDALL of Colorado submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1867, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of section 1031, add the following:

(f) Extension to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens.–The authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons under this section extends to citizens of the United States and lawful resident aliens of the United States, except to the extent prohibited by the Constitution of the United States.

Below is the text of Udall amendment SA1107

(a) In General.–Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall, in consultation with appropriate officials in the Executive Office of the President, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Attorney General, submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report setting forth the following:

(1) A statement of the position of the Executive Branch on the appropriate role for the Armed Forces of the United States in the detention and prosecution of covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)).

(2) A statement and assessment of the legal authority asserted by the Executive Branch for such detention and prosecution.

(3) A statement of any existing deficiencies or anticipated deficiencies in the legal authority for such detention and prosecution.

(c) Congressional Action.–Each of the appropriate committees of Congress may, not later than 45 days after receipt of the report required by subsection (a), hold a hearing on the report, and shall, within 45 days of such hearings, report to Congress legislation, if such committee determines legislation is appropriate and advisable, modifying or expanding the authority of the Executive Branch to carry out detention and prosecution of covered persons.

Udall Amendment SA1107 Defeated in Senate

By: Scott Creighton
Nov 29, 2011

UPDATE: you can find the roll call vote, here. SA1112 has yet to come to the floor of the senate for a vote. A few of those voting for the Udall amendment were:

Baucus (D-MT), Feinstein (D-CA), Kerry (D-MA), Reid (D-NV), Schumer (D-NY), and Rockefeller (D-WV) and of course, Rand Paul.

——-

I’ve been writing about the Udall amendment SA1107 for 3 days now. Today it was defeated in the senate by a vote of 61 to 37. Udall’s amendment sought to replace the controversial section 1031 of the NDAA 20122 Act pertaining to military detentions of terrorist suspects. In the NDAA act, US citizens are clearly exempted from military detentions. Udall’s amendment struck that part of the NDAA bill and instead recommended that Obama, Panetta, Clinton and the head of Homeland Security get together and craft legislation that they would like better for consideration by a congressional panel at a later date. In another amendment, Udall actually included language that stated that military detentions would include US citizens.

The sections of the bill that the Obama administration is most upset with are the parts of NDAA 2012 that claim that terrorists suspects other than US citizens, anywhere they are caught in the world, must be handed over to the military and it prohibits the military from renditioning suspects to black op sites run by the likes of the CIA and friendly entities across the world.

I will try to find out exactly how each senator voted.

The other Udall amendment, SA1112, which clearly states that US citizens can be detained by the military is still under consideration as far as I can tell.

S.1867 NDAA 2012 Debate Updates

Nov 30, 2011

UPDATE: at the end of this article, check out the Feinstein amendments SA1125 and SA1126. They are simple and straight forward and when coupled with the provision already written into the NDAA 2012 that states mandatory military detentions does not apply to US citizens, these two simple fixes go a long way to preserve our civil liberties at this critical time. PLUS the Feinstein amendments were not considered yesterday so they are still under consideration for today.

——

The debate on sections 1031 and 1032 are all over the webs this morning in varying degrees of breathless, panic inducing “the sky is falling” rants. We’ll take a look at a few of them and give you yet another rundown of the actual legislation that most don’t seem to be able to link to.

Alex Jones went on Russia Today last night giving himself credit for covering this topic “last week” when it was actually Paul Joseph Watson about 4 days ago same day I started writing about it. Jones goes on to claim that NDAA 2012 is the same thing the “Nazis” did back in the 30s. “They want to pass a law like Hitler passed laws saying he could arrest anyone he wanted”

If that isn’t breathless enough for you, Jones went on “This is right out of Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, Pol Pot. Right out of East Germany, Nazi Germany!” At that point in the interview, the host had to calm Alex down as his poorly acted “crazy Alex” rant was going on a bit too far. Notice Alex doesn’t mention the dozens of neoliberalized countries that the US and CIA installed over the past 6 decades who created secret police and disappeared tens of thousands of left-wing activists, writers, professors, and politicians. I guess his libertarian sensibilities (business first, “limited government”) keep him from talking about those business first fascist dictatorships.

Thank goodness Alex is always there to make sure the dissident opinion is presented to the American people in such a measured and rational way, huh?

The Russia Today interview is even more embarrassing because the person interviewing Jones mistakenly referenced the Bradley Manning psyop to show that military detentions on US soil had already happened.

Bradley Manning was a soldier when he was “detained”, a soldier serving overseas to be accurate. Of course he would be detained in a military brig.He was a soldier serving in the military.

A better and obviously more accurate example that the host should have used would be Jose Padilla, the case which set the current legal precedent (with the 4th Circuit Court ruling that US citizens would not be held in military detention) for military detentions of US citizens on American soil. But she of course didn’t seem to want to mention that one, or is to ignorant to know about it.

Over at George Washington’s Blog, usually a great source of information, “George” mistakenly informs his readers that the bill, NDAA 2012, passed. In reality, it was the Udall amendment SA 1107 that was defeated yesterday. NDAA 2012 is still being discussed today.

Glenn Greenwald (of Salon) and Marcy Wheeler (of Empty Wheel) seem to have a pretty good understanding of what is taking place. They discuss whether or not one solution is better than the other meaning that they understand the Udall amendment isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

I wish they would talk about the fact that Mr. Anders of the ACLU neglected to provide any links to the Udall amendment in his breathless article that started all of this. At least Greenwald gets it right when he correctly states that President Obama’s main trouble with section 1031 and 1032 is that they impede his ability to fight his all important “Global War on Terror”. He and Wheeler also get it right when they admit as written these sections do not expand the powers of the unitary executive as they imagine they already are.

However, the Udall amendments would have allowed Clinton and Panetta and others to write up  entirely new language which would have allowed for them to expand on those powers.

Here’s what Marcy Wheeler has to say about the Udall amendment:

“The Udall Amendment, while giving the Senate Intelligence and Senate Judiciary Committees an opportunity to weigh in on what the President must and can do with detainees, goes far beyond the language in the SASC version of 1031, which reaffirmed the war on terrorists, but only on terrorists who have anything directly to do with, or are associated with, 9/11.

I may be badly misreading this. But as I understand it, the ACLU is basically lobbying to codify a vastly-expanded AUMF that will serve to legitimize many of the intelligence community’s most egregious civil liberties abuses, not just on detention, but on a range of other “war powers,” like wiretapping and assassination.” Marcy Wheeler, EmptyWheel

Wheeler is correct. The Udall amendment SA1107 would certainly expand the powers of the unitary executive under AUMF. It would also hand over to the administration and their cronies the opportunity to rewrite that section of the NDAA in whatever way they saw fit. I wish she would have made mention of that aspect of Udall’s amendment.

Read the entirety of the Udall amendment SA 1107 which was just defeated in the senate and is being hailed as some kind of protection of our civil rights.

(a) In General.–Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall, in consultation with appropriate officials in the Executive Office of the President, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Attorney General, submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report setting forth the following:

(1) A statement of the position of the Executive Branch on the appropriate role for the Armed Forces of the United States in the detention and prosecution of covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)).

(2) A statement and assessment of the legal authority asserted by the Executive Branch for such detention and prosecution.

(3) A statement of any existing deficiencies or anticipated deficiencies in the legal authority for such detention and prosecution.

(c) Congressional Action.–Each of the appropriate committees of Congress may, not later than 45 days after receipt of the report required by subsection (a), hold a hearing on the report, and shall, within 45 days of such hearings, report to Congress legislation, if such committee determines legislation is appropriate and advisable, modifying or expanding the authority of the Executive Branch to carry out detention and prosecution of covered persons.

In what bizzarro world interpretation of this amendment does it serve to limit the authority of the already out of control unitary executive president?  Does ANYONE really think that Hillary Clinton, James Clapper, Janet Napolitano, and Eric Holder are going to get together and hash out a new section 1031 which limits their ability to detain and arrest US citizens simply because it might violate our constitutional rights? Here’s a small list of senators who voted in favor of the Udall amendment just to give you an idea of the freedom loving civil servants who supported it:

Baucus (D-MT), Feinstein (D-CA), Kerry (D-MA), Reid (D-NV), Schumer (D-NY), and Rockefeller (D-WV) and of course, Rand Paul.

There are some real freedom loving Americans, huh?

Over at Lions of Liberty and the Daily Paul, they are calling the senators who voted against the above amendment “traitors” How’s that for Orwellian breathless?

It should be enough to know that President Obama and many others are determined to have that section rewritten to something along the lines of what Udall proposed. Hell, the Director of the FBI is adamant about changing that section as well.

“In a letter to lawmakers, Mueller detailed his concerns with the provision that mandates military custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al Qaeda or its affiliates and involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. The White Househas threatened a veto over the language in the bill and limits on the administration’s ability to transfer suspected terrorists.” Fox News

That coming from the head of the intelligence department that has, to date, fabricated 17 terrorists plots against targets in the US since Sept. 11th, 2001. That coming from the head of the intelligence department that did everything they could to railroad a suspect for the anthrax attacks after 9/11 which ended up costing America over 5 million dollars in the subsequent lawsuit.

But not to worry folks, Mark Udall has yet another savior amendment still in the running; SA 1112. This other amendment leaves even less to the imagination when it comes to expanding the unitary executive’s authority and bringing a true totalitarian state to our shores.

Below is the text of Udall amendment SA1112

SA 1112. Mr. UDALL of Colorado submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1867, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of section 1031, add the following:

(f) Extension to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens.–The authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons under this section extends to citizens of the United States and lawful resident aliens of the United States, except to the extent prohibited by the Constitution of the United States.

UPDATE: Feinstein amendments to S. 1867 (go here and click on S7745 then scroll down)

   SA 1125. Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Udall of Colorado) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill S. 1867, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; as follows:

On page 361, line 9, insert “abroad” after “is captured”.

SA 1126. Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Udall of Colorado) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill S. 1867, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; as follows:

On page 360, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:

(e) Applicability to Citizens.–The authority described in this section for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain a person does not include the authority to detain a citizen of the United States without trial until the end of the hostilities.

S. 1867 Passed in the Senate

By: Scott Creighton
Dec 2, 2011

UPDATE: listed below are some of the breathless panic inducing hyperbole being yelled from the rooftops

——–

Late last night, S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 passed the senate vote and now moves onto be meshed with the House version, then back for a final vote on the combined bill. Then it goes to the president’s desk for final approval.

Neither of the Feinstein amendments that I had supported were included in the bill but Feinstein and Lindsey Graham put together a “compromise” amendment which served to garner enough bi-partisan support to get the military funding legislation passed through the senate.

Their compromise amendment dealt with the contentious “indefinite detention” section of the legislation, section 1031 as that there is already a disclaimer in section 1032 that states it does not mandate that US citizens are to be held in military detention under military jurisdiction.

The exact text of their “compromise” is hard to find, I am looking for it now, but over at HuffPuff they have an article which lists the following as the text without providing a link to the source. That is rather odd as I pointed out with the ACLU’s Mr. Anders article some days ago. Well, we all see why Mr. Anders didn’t provide links to the legislation in his article, it would not have supported his argument. My question about the HuffPuff piece is similar… why not provide the link to the source of the text of the amendment?

Curiously, Mr. Anders of the ACLU plays a role in the HuffPuff piece, being quoted multiple times saying the end is near and the legislation means that we are all going to have the Stazi kicking in our doors as soon as Obama signs it into law.

“This bill puts military detention authority on steroids and makes it permanent. If it becomes law, American citizens and others are at real risk of being locked away by the military without charge or trial.” Breathless Anders of the ACLU

I think that’s a bit melodramatic, but if you want to create a panic so that the legislation is rewritten allowing Hillary Clinton to write the final version, I guess you have to make such claims, regardless of the truth.

So while I look for the actual amendment “compromise”, read what the HuffPuff piece claims about it.

“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,” compromise amendment according to HuffPuff

This amendment passed 99-1. It was already made clear in the original sec 1031 that the bill did not expand upon the powers of the executive branch in relation to the AUMF. This language seems to make it clear that the bill will not expand upon those powers nor will it contract them. Thus the “compromise”.

Seems the senate has kicked this can down the road preferring to let this questionable debate work itself out in committee. We have not seen the end of this.

S. 1867 – And Now… For the Rest.. of the Story

Dec 2, 2011

Note: Let it be known that I do not support these sections of S. 1867 as written.

I just think we need to consider the rest of the story before doing the bidding of Obama and the FBI.

The internets are abuzz with end-times prognostication on the meaning and menace of S. 1867 the National Defense Authorization Act 2012. Sooth-Sayers and belligerent bloggers from all sides are damning us to eternal detainment because section 1031 doesn’t go far enough to claim that U.S. citizens can’t be treated like those evil Canadian terrorists. Mike Adams claims the evil guberment has the right to murder OWS protesters in cold blood while that guy from the Oath Keepers (and YALE… wink wink wink) claims it’s time we started shooting people because the constitution is over (though he “HOPEs” it won’t come to that… wink wink wink)

But as several people have shown, myself included, though the language of the bill is unduly vague and getting vaguer by the minute, it hardly expands the claimed power of the unitary executive that much farther than already assumed by our Peace Prize “winning”, U.S. citizen murdering president of “CHANGE IS…”.

It certainly doesn’t provide for shooting little miss drum circle in the face with a riot gun. If Mr. Natural Ranger would like to debate me on that subject, my calender is pretty open.

So, just fucking relax. Take a breath, and let’s look at what the bill actually does and start to ask the very serious questions that must arise from such legislation such as “Why do these supposed “dissident” and “human rights” groups misrepresent this bill in such a way and whom do they really serve?”

That’s a good question. But let’s start with a review of the other things the bill actually does before we get to that. Let’s look at “the rest of the story”.

Military Jurisdiction as opposed to the Counter Intelligence Industrial Complex

First of all, the bill has one very specific end result and that is, it strips the FBI and the Counter Intelligence Industrial Complex of the ability to “investigate” terrorist plots on U.S. soil.

Of that, there is no question. The bill MANDATES that ongoing investigations are allowed to continue, but future investigations, arrests, detentions, interrogations, and trials be handled through military channels.

How bad would that be?

Even Judge Napolitano of Fox News recently admitted and did a segment of his show explaining that all 17 of the FBI’s “thwarted terrorist plots” since 9/11 were FABRICATED by the FBI. Every single one of them. They were ALL handled in civilian court nearly all of them were given a show trial, a kangaroo court, and were convicted to life sentences behind bars.

What is the difference between a life sentence without the possibility of parole handed down in a kangaroo court and “indefinite detention”? Indefinite detention can end. That’s the difference.

Many writers have been exposing the fraudulent nature of these FBI success stories for what they are; entrapment, fraud, and even terrorist plots leveled against the people of this country BY people of this country… the FBI.

Look at what Keith Olbermann demanded of Bloomberg and Kelly after their bullshit “terrorist” story fell apart just last month in New York. That horrendous frame-up was created by the NYPD Intelligence Division. They made it up out of thin air.

This bill would put an end to those kind of operations. Is that a bad thing? Obama thinks it is.

The New York Times has an article in which an Obama apologist wants him to veto the bill if it remains as written precisely because it does what I say it does.

“The Senate is debating the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes a series of provisions that mandate military interrogation and detention for any suspected member of Al Qaeda, and authorize indefinite detention of terrorist suspects without trial. (The law is written so broadly that parts of it could also cover U.S. citizens.)…

…. These new policies would all but remove the F.B.I., federal prosecutors, and federal courts from the business of interrogating, charging and trying suspected terrorists. Never mind that they have a track record of doing just that, legally and in the open. Instead, it would put those functions in the hands of the military, which is not very good at it, and doesn’t want to do it.” New York Times

In his dissenting address letter to congress, Obama makes it very clear why he does not support the language of this part of the bill and thus he gives his real reason for his threatened veto of it. Aside from paying a bit of lip service to our constitutional rights as citizens (which is exposed as being purely bullshit when one understands that both Levin and Udall admit in a talk on the senate floor from Nov. 17th that it was the Obama administration who forced them to remove language in the original bill that made sure U.S. citizens were not to be covered under these new provisions… a fact Mr. Greenwald recently forgot to mention in his latest article on the subject) the Obama administration makes it very clear that he intends to maintain the status quo when it comes to preserving the Counter Intelligence Complex in all of it’s various forms as it has developed since the False Flag attack of 9/11:

The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects. This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President’s authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals

… We have spent ten years since September 11, 2001, breaking down the walls between intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals; Congress should not now rebuild those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult. Specifically, the provision would limit the flexibility of our national security professionals to choose, based on the evidence and the facts and circumstances of each case, which tool for incapacitating dangerous terrorists best serves our national security interests. ” Barack Obama

The Director of the FBI is strongly opposed to the passage of the bill as it’s written and so is the former head of the CIA, Leon Panetta. The current CIA chief has yet to weigh in on the matter oddly enough. In fact many career “intelligence” professionals are strongly opposed to this bill being passed as is. Why is that? Why are they opposed to it and why don’t the likes of Mr. Anders at the ACLU and Alex Jones pointing that out? Why indeed.

There is a huge cottage industry that has developed since 9/11. They are the Counter Intelligence Industrial Complex and they are making billions of dollars fighting the so-called “Global War on Terror” right here in our back yards. They are already doing it. There are billions of federal and state dollars to be had and all one has to do is include the terms “national security” and “al Qaeda” in your proposal, and you are just about assured of getting huge financial endowments to start up your business. This bill threatens to end much of that (not all as many of these businesses are connected to the military under DoD contracts and that will probably continue if not grow)

So who does that hurt? The private sector counter intelligence industry? Of course. Not just the FBI and the over financed “intelligence” divisions of your local police department, but it hurts the average start-up fraud guy looking to cash in on some random aspect of the Global War on Terror.

Is that a bad thing? I don’t know, but it is something that should be talked about in discussion forums openly because it is an aspect of all of this that will have huge implications on other parts of what I am about to discuss.

Extraordinary Renditions

Another aspect of this bill that is getting NO attention from the dissident and human rights sites is the fact that it practically does away with the practice of secretly renditioning terror suspects to foreign countries for “interrogation” (read as “torture”)

Well, let’s be more specific, it does away with using tax-payer dollars for the renditioning of terror suspects to other countries “or entities” (whatever that means. Is al Qaeda in Libya an “entity”?)

This simply means that the CIA and other clandestine death squads operating in the field are going to have to use some of their illegal heroin cash for such operations. That is pissing them off. They got other plans for that cash like arming the so-called “drug cartels” in Mexico (Iran contra ring any bells?)

But again, is this a bad thing? Should US tax-payer cash be used to fly Canadian citizens to foreign countries so they can be routinely tortured into confessing to things they did not do. Is that what we need to be paying for these days? Is that what you want your tax-dollars going toward? I don’t.

United States as a Legitimate Part of the Battle Field in the Global War on Terror (read as “Global Free Market Wars”)

This is probably going to be the most controversial aspect of this article without a doubt.

There is no easy way to go about this part of the debate. What seems to help in some circumstances will surely open the door for unscrupulous actors to use modified wartime powers to harm our civil liberties in ways that make even the most hyperactive sooth-Sayers blush with their naiveté. it’s dangerous ground to be sure, but let’s open this up for debate and try to understand, beyond the breathless hyperbole, what are the real and imagined traps which lay before us, and who really stands the risk of falling into them.

I think the answer might be surprising if not just a little unexpected.

The idea is that this new legislation declares the entire world as the battlefield in the fictitious Global War on Terror. That’s deeply concerning to me and many others out there. Venezuela has nothing to do with the GWAT and neither does Guam for that matter, yet this bill includes future acts that may or may not involve these countries. This is an outright expansion of what has been called the “endless war” the “100 years war” right at the beginning of it.

That’s troubling. Very troubling. And it needs to be stricken from the bill. It will provide Obama and other future presidents the ability to launch drone strikes against anybody at any time in the future and he would only have to claim it’s his struggle against the evil forces of terror in his GWOT. National security will permit him to keep his evidence a state secret. That is horrible legislation and must be stricken from the bill.

But is the declaration that that United States is part of the battle ground in the same vein? Is there an argument to be made that the United States is in fact part of the battle field if the so-called Global War on Terror is real?

Imagine Iran were to launch drone strikes against Miami Beach. Would Iran then be considered part of the battle field in the GWOT? Of course. All of Iran would then be a target in our Shock and Awe response.

So how is it different when we wage a drone war on Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and Iraq from the comfortable confines of Colorado and New York? Does the act of having legitimate combatants on the ground on U.S. soil killing supposed combatants in this war necessarily define their locations to be part of the battle field?

These drone control cubicles are basically on wheels. They can be put anywhere really. They can be shipped to your neighborhood, they can sit in your driveway. If the military were to do that, would that mean that your driveway is part of the battle field? Is it already? It would be if we had the same definitions applied to us that we have applied already to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen.

You can’t deny that.

Consider this: did the draft make endless wars more likely to happen or did it actually help to bring an end to that part of our foreign policy for awhile til the draft was no more?

The draft, while it was designed to help draw out the war, actually made everyone cannon fodder and thus it helped do the exact opposite. That’s why we don’t have one now. Let the under-funded public school system fail the poor and working classes so they will no better option than to serve in the military and let the privileged classes’ children remain free from the bombs and the bullets. That is the policy now.

So what happens when the U.S. is declared part of the battle field? Does that bring the fraudulent GWOT home in such a way that it might help bring a faster resolution to all of this; ie: will calling Detroit part of the battle field help convince the people of Detroit to make their representatives call an end to it all?

It”s a good question and one to which I don’t know the answer. But who could have foreseen the draft which was enacted to maintain the failed policy of Vietnam would actually bring about it’s conclusion prior to Nixon and Kissenger’s planned achievements in that area?

Lastly on this aspect of this chat, I want to point something out that will be a bit controversial (as if what I have already written isn’t controversial enough)

What happens if the United States is declared part of the battle field in the GWOT and someone from within this government or governments past decides they want to stage another Operation Northwoods type event?

Think about that for a minute.

If every part of the U.S. is considered the battle field, then planning a terrorist act, even planning a fake terrorist act like the FBI and the NYPD Intelligence Division have done, would be an act of war not just a crime. It could actually be considered high treason couldn’t it because on the surface, even a fake attack designed to be stopped, at some level must be considered a real threat to the target. And if the entire country is the battle field that means each and everything in it is part of the military GWOT ergo planning even a fake attack on a Jewish Synagogue is actually an attack in support of a foreign entity we are at war with. Therefore it’s treason and an act of war.

On the flip side, military intelligence (let’s face it, the Pentagon is run by former CIA chief Leon Panetta. That’s bad) could fabricate terrorist plots just like the FBI did. Just like Bloomberg did. And in fact there are many many DoD contractors who would jump at the chance to help the military root out the evil “terrorist lefties” here in America. So that works both ways.

Wrap Up

So there you have it. A small glimpse at “the rest of the story”

In light of all of this, does it make more sense now that the Obama administration, the FBI and Leon Panetta are all on record wanting nothing to do with the language of this bill as it is written? Does this make it clearer to people why certain controlled opposition sites would purposefully inflate the dangers of the bill without going into detail about these other aspects of it?

All I can conclude after nearly a week of reading the bill and the various amendments, reading all the comments made by congressmen and public figures alike, reading and discussing it in detail with you readers here… all I can come away with is that it is just as convoluted as I claimed in my first article on the subject. Nothing about this bill is clearly defined and neither are the partisan and bi-partisan responses to it. Nothing is as it seems in this part of the bill and nothing is easy to forecast in terms of what it will or will not do.

As it stands the bill got through the senate with a bit of a fix, but not much of one.

It now goes to the House and then committee and probably back to the senate and we are sure to debate this again in the near future.

Understand this: every country that is liberalized is done so at the point of a gun. With no exceptions. Eventually the people come to understand what is happening to them (as we are starting to see more and more of in this country and other Western democracies around Europe) it is only the forcible rule of a totalitarian system that can keep the globalist policies in place.

WE.. WILL.. BE.. NO.. DIFFERENT

I have said this from the first day I started this blog 4 and a half years ago. It is the sole reason that I do this blog, that I expose the propaganda and the globalist creep that is infecting the world as we speak.

WE.. WILL.. BE.. NO.. DIFFERENT

This bill is a step. It is a step in one direction or another. The serious debate must come to focus on the entirety of the bill and not just one, over-inflated aspect of it, if the debate itself is to serve any other purpose that simply ramming more totalitarianism down our throats. The debate itself is important, let there be no mistake.

Thanks for your consideration of “the rest of the story”

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

By: Scott Creighton
Jan 1, 2012

“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

Aside from the horrendous language of the bill, the signing statement (full text of President Obama’s signing statement found at the end of this article)  itself expands the unconstitutional powers of the office of the Unitary Executive in ways that we are only beginning to understand.

First of all understand this: President Obama’s platitude about not using new congressional authority against U.S. citizens is pointless. A Presidential Signing Statement has no legal standing what-so-ever and like so many other grand gestures issued by our president of “CHANGE”, this promise of his is worth absolutely nothing.  His 3 years in office have made that very, very clear.

Carl Levin and Udall both admitted in the senate as they were discussing the Udall amendment, that it was in fact the Obama administration who demanded they remove certain language from the bill that would have expressly forbidden the use of indefinite military detention of U.S. citizens.

So this tissue thin veil of President Obama’s respect for his constitutional obligations fell apart even before he wrote it, at least a month ago.

Also keep in mind that President Obama claims the right to kill U.S. citizens without any due process of law, simply on his say-so.

I’m not exactly sure what part of the constitution Barack found that little gem in, but I suspect if you look, you won’t have an easy time finding it.

There are many terrible aspects of this legislation. I believe, now that the House and the Senate revised certain sections in committee prior to it going to the White House, this legislation does in fact provide the required constitutional authority for the president to use military forces against the citizens of this country.

But this bill goes further than that in one regard and that is it normalizes immoral behavior for the left and those opposed to indefinite detention and torture OF ANYONE and in fact, that should have been the debate all along. But it was not.

So not only does this legislation expand the powers of the president in dangerous and immoral ways,  shredding several protections granted us under the constitution, but it also acted like a sort of lobotomy of the country’s conscience.  The evil you inflict on others will eventually return to your shores.

That said, there were some valuable parts of the bill which aimed to change certain aspects of how we conduct this Global War on Terror (Global Free Market Wars). They looked to force the military to reclassify suspect who have already been detained and to severely limit the use of extraordinary renditions. These just happen to be the parts of the bills that President Obama doesn’t seem to like and thus the reasons for his signing statement.

Obama is determined to maintain what he calls “flexibility” of law enforcement on his global war on terror. In fact, what he is doing is protecting the financial interests of the massive Counter-Intelligence Industrial Complex, a multi-billion dollar industry which blossomed after 9/11.

Below you will find the video of Obama’s campaign promise dealing with presidential signing statements as well as the full text of his signing statement issued with NDAA 2012. Obama has gone well past his predecessor when it comes to undermining our constitutional rights.

Transcript of Signing Statement by President Barack Obama on H.R. 1540, December 31,  2011

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “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.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa’ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counter terrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.

Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch’s processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.

Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.

Section 1028 modifies but fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch’s authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This hinders the executive’s ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and like section 1027, would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. In the event that the statutory restrictions in sections 1027 and 1028 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict.

Section 1029 requires that the Attorney General consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense prior to filing criminal charges against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals. I sign this based on the understanding that apart from detainees held by the military outside of the United States under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the provision applies only to those individuals who have been determined to be covered persons under section 1022 before the Justice Department files charges or seeks an indictment. Notwithstanding that limitation, this provision represents an intrusion into the functions and prerogatives of the Department of Justice and offends the longstanding legal tradition that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions should be vested with the Attorney General free from outside interference. Moreover, section 1029 could impede flexibility and hinder exigent operational judgments in a manner that damages our security. My Administration will interpret and implement section 1029 in a manner that preserves the operational flexibility of our counter terrorism and law enforcement professionals, limits delays in the investigative process, ensures that critical executive branch functions are not inhibited, and preserves the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice.

Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.

My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.

BARACK OBAMA,

THE WHITE HOUSE,

December 31, 2011.

 

Advertisements

Comments are closed.