HR 1540 S1867 turns the USA into a Battlefield!

yes sir the USA is now by the definition of law, a Battlefield newswithviews.com... from the link

BATTLEFIELD AMERICA



By Attorney Jonathan Emord
Author of "The Rise of Tyranny" and
"Global Censorship of Health Information"
December 12, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

Senate Bill 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, drafted in secret by Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich) and John McCain (R-AZ), contains a provision that authorizes the armed forces to arrest and imprison without charge or trial those suspected of involvement in or support of terrorist organizations, including American citizens resident in the United States. Not since the summary detention of Asian Americans during the Second World War on suspicion of potential complicity with the Axis enemies of the United States has a law promised to violate in a more direct and profound manner the rights of the American people.

let you that think you know the law debunk this.. I told you so just in case you wonder who this attorney is www.emord.com...

Has it been passed sir?

reply to post by Jepic


I think Obama votes for it tomorrow.

Not 100% sure, though.

reply to post by Jepic
only in the House and Senate Obama still needs to say yea or nay but then Congress can override a nay

I feel i must or it will go unnoticed

Under Section 1031 of Senate Bill 1867, if your next door neighbor is merely accused of involvement in or support of some terrorist organization or suspected terrorist organization, military police are free to show up at his door, break it in, place him under arrest, and escort him to a military installation for indefinite incarceration without affording him the right of habeas corpus or a speedy trial on the merits before a jury in the federal judicial system. The power is not unlike that of the Gestapo. The law invites abuse beyond the obvious invasion of protected rights, because it can—like the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798—be used to eliminate political dissidents of one kind or another.

do you get it NOW?

Originally posted by bekod
I feel i must or it will go unnoticed

Under Section 1031 of Senate Bill 1867, if your next door neighbor is merely accused of involvement in or support of some terrorist organization or suspected terrorist organization, military police are free to show up at his door, break it in, place him under arrest, and escort him to a military installation for indefinite incarceration without affording him the right of habeas corpus or a speedy trial on the merits before a jury in the federal judicial system. The power is not unlike that of the Gestapo. The law invites abuse beyond the obvious invasion of protected rights, because it can—like the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798—be used to eliminate political dissidents of one kind or another.

do you get it NOW?

Wrong. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. And the only "political dissidents" it can be used against are Al Qaeda and the Taliban--the same "political dissidents" the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force targeted in the first place. This law does not give the government any new powers. Section 1031(d): "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." Couldn't be clearer.

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
well lets see hows right on this shall we www.campaignforliberty.org... from the link

I cannot stress this enough (nor can I express how many times I responded to it by email, phone, and private message) -- don't be fooled by Section 1032, Subsection (b) on "Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens."

Despite what a straight-forward reading of the text would appear to say, that the "requirement to detain a person" does not apply to U.S. Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens this is just cleverly worded political-speak to deceive the American people. Just because they aren't "required" doesn't mean they aren't allowed.

With all that cleared up (hopefully clear as glass rather than mud) let's look at where we're at now.

now do you have it or is there still doubt?

here is the letter I received via E mail

You and I both know that freedom is not free. Its price cannot be measured in dollars - and its defense requires eternal vigilance.

On December 1, the U.S. Senate passed S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), by a vote of 93-7.

A slightly different NDAA, H.R. 1540, had already passed the U.S. House in May, and it has been reconciled with the Senate version in a closed session of a Joint Conference Committee.

The NDAA is passed annually to specify the budget and expenditures for the U.S. Department of Defense, but this year's version would essentially strip American Citizens of due process - protections that used to set us apart from despotic nations.

The Senate version of the NDAA declares the homeland to be part of the battlefield in the "War on Terror."

In simple terms, Sections 1031 and 1032 of S. 1867 allow American citizens to be detained indefinitely - without charges or trial - until the War on Terror is declared over.

There has been some recent confusion over what exactly the Senate bill actually stipulates.

In fact, when you call your representative and BOTH of your senators, as I'm about to ask you to do, the staff will probably give you one of two canned responses:

1.) "The Feinstein amendment #1456, which passed on Dec. 1 (by a vote of 99-1), says that no provision of Sec. 1031 can be taken to "affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens."

In reality, this was added nearly unanimously at the last minute to appease those of us rightly opposed to these detention provisions. In the Congressional Record that day, there are arguments from Senators Lindsey Graham and Carl Levin, both of whom supported this amendment, stating they believe the President and Congress already have the authority to detain American Citizens, since the Supreme Court hasn't yet ruled otherwise. This is not the case, but it explains why the bill's main supporters did not oppose the Feinstein amendment.

2.) "It already exempts American Citizens. You should know that Sec. 1032 actually states: "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

Don't fall for their cleverly chosen legislative language.

A careful reading of the suspect sections bears out that, while there is no requirement to detain an American citizen, the act thereof is not explicitly prohibited. By extension, it is actually permitted.

As if the above is not bad enough, the power to determine which American citizens will be indefinitely detained without charges or trial will be left to the President alone.

I'm certain you would agree that something as important as overturning longstanding American jurisprudence deserves to be the subject of a vigorous debate in a public forum.

But, late last week, the House, by an overwhelming majority (406-17), passed a motion that allowed this Joint Committee to meet in secret.

Last night, the House and Senate conferees emerged without having changed the offending detainee provisions of the NDAA.

And the section numbers (formerly 1031 and 1032) have been changed to 1021 and 1022.

A vote on the conference report could come as early as this Wednesday in the House of Representatives!

So I need your members of Congress to know where you stand immediately!

It is imperative you contact your representative and both of your senators today to urge them to vote NO on the NDAA (H.R. 1540/S. 1867) Conference Report unless Secs. 1021 and 1022 are removed or modified to explicitly exclude all U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens.


In Liberty,



Matt Hawes
Vice President



P.S. Call your representative and senators today at 202-224-3121 to urge them to say NO on the NDAA Conference Report unless Secs. 1021 and 1022 are removed or heavily modified.

Here is the" Now you see it Now you don't" that Congress does so well

And the section numbers (formerly 1031 and 1032) have been changed to 1021 and 1022.

lastly you should know that... well let some one else say it from the link

2.) "It already exempts American Citizens. You should know that Sec. 1032 actually states: "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

Don't fall for their cleverly chosen legislative language.

A careful reading of the suspect sections bears out that, while there is no requirement to detain an American citizen, the act thereof is not explicitly prohibited. By extension, it is actually permitted.

So now that you know the requirement does not exist, but the right to do so does, I ask, now what do you have to say??

reply to post by bekod


I'm sure mr. Obama will sign it in to law, nothing's stopping them now. Sadly I think the first nuke dropped on our soil will be from our own gov't. The very same gov't that we give our money to to protect us...

Originally posted by dorkfish87
reply to post by bekod

 

I'm sure mr. Obama will sign it in to law, nothing's stopping them now. Sadly I think the first nuke dropped on our soil will be from our own gov't. The very same gov't that we give our money to to protect us...

in this case the "nuke" is the law of war in an other thread the White House has no tsiad it will veto this so yea it will become law , NWO and SS is at the door dressed in DHS/ TSA costumes, learn how to say ZIG BUSH, Stomp your feet when you sat that your know hile Hit er pardon me it is Heil, mein Führer!!!! Obama!!! through chest out, and arm straight out, with double foot stomp, calf high black boots optional

reply to post by bekod


What gets me about these bills is that - for the most part - none of the language contained within them is specifically meaningful by itself. Striking this and replacing that and adding an "if" or changing a long sentence for a word are all completely meaningless out of context.

In effect, the sbs and hrs are basically only comprehensible when read in tandem with any and all previous legislation or regulation that it intends to modify. In a sense, it's not 967 pages in and of itself. It's really 967 pages of modifications to probably some 1 or 2 million pages of regulations and stipulations for almost every branch and department of the government.

We jump out at a very subtle word like "requirement" as some glaring example of how bad this bill is, yet even that has to be explained for a person to get it. I also did not consider the distinction between required and not expressly prohibited (and thus, allowed) until I read it again in your post above.

Imagine, when, in SEC. 1042. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF 2009., it says:

" (i) by inserting `if' after `(2)'; and

(ii) by inserting before the period the following: `, not later than 20 days after the date on which such notice is submitted'.

What does that really mean? "If" could seriously change the meaning of a sentence. Yet, how many people are bothering to find paragraph 2 of the Amendments that relate to the Military Commissions Act of 2009. I mean, we're not even talking the actual act, we're talking "AMENDMENTS RELATING TO...". We're talking corrections of corrections, amending the already amended.

It's great if this is waking some people up, but I think a more in depth analysis of everything is required here. What else have we not perceived in that 967 page document and it's millions and millions of referents and referents of referents.

reply to post by Sphota
yes this is called double speak, meant and intended for the common person to give up and not seek out the true meaning the the law lets take "if" and inject in too this sentence of say a a law on crowd control as written, "the person(s) acting in or a hostile matter can and will be detained" so as it is, the person must be engaged in the act of, or in the state of being hostile.
Now lets put "if" in
"the person(s) if acting in or a hostile matter can and will be detained"
This does change it a lot. Now the person does not need be in the sate of, or in the act of being hostile the arresting officer can can now say "I believe he/ she was going to act in such away" but i let them go. as in "MY itchy toe told me so"
now for the real sneaky part lets put a "," in
"the person(s) if acting in or a hostile matter can, and will be detained" the arresting officer must now detain said person. Even though there is no proof, other than the perceived intentions by the officer.
Law is such a pain but it is easy to under stand at times

HR 1540 is now at the GPO that's the Gov Printing Office www.gpo.gov... from the link

Subtitle D—Counterterrorism
Sec. 1021. Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain
covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military
Force.
Sec. 1022. Military custody for foreign al-Qaeda terrorists.
Sec. 1023. Procedures for periodic detention review of individuals detained at
United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

now it should be, with in ten days, be signed by Obama