Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
You seem pretty knowledgeable about the law...what can we as citizens do to get this overturned?
I would first suggest you be careful about categorizing yourself as a "citizen". The problem with this most recent Act of Aggression by the United
States Federal government against We the People in the NDAA of 2012 is the product of a very long, steady and systematic attack on the holders of the
inherent political power.
Citizenship is not an unalienable right.
I've started a new paragraph because I want that last sentence to stand on its own in hopes the weight of its assertion sinks in deep enough for
cognizance to fully understand its communication. Unalienable rights are those rights which cannot be alienated. Unalienable rights cannot be
transferred, granted, or revoked. No one need ask permission for an unalienable right and no government has ever had any lawful authority to presume
that they alone are the arbiters of what is and what is not an unalienable right and presume that they alone may grant such rights.
Civil rights, on the other hand, are not unalienable. Civil rights are extra privileges, such as citizenship, that governments create for their own
purposes. The Civil Rights Movement was correctly named so at the time because it was largely a battle to get those Americans who were Black to use
their civil right to vote. Voting, like citizenship, is not an unalienable right, it is a civil right. Today that Civil Rights Movement, along with
organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union, have become a most imprudent replacement for the unalienable rights that preexist any
government and belong to all people, everywhere, of all shapes, sizes, colors, creeds or religions.
I believe the first thing...the foundation of challenging the unconstitutional sections of the 2012 NDAA...that needs to be cemented is that this
issue is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a "civil rights" issue, this is a human rights issue. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals was in
error regarding Rumsfeld v. Padilla and given recent rulings by the Supreme Court, such as Citizens United v FEC and Bond v United States, not to
mention even earlier rulings regarding an individuals right to keep and bear arms, it is reasonable to predict that were Sections 1021 and 1022 of the
2012 NDAA properly challenged, the Supreme Court would indeed hear the case and probably rule against the government and strike that portion of the
Act down as unconstitutional.
What I mean by properly challenged is that the mistakes made by Padilla's team. In my opinion it is a mistake to argue that the government does not
have the right to indefinitely detain American "citizens". The problem with this argument is that it is making a distinction of whom has rights,
tacitly agreeing that people not American citizens do not have the same rights and that the U.S. federal government is not bound by the same
Constitutional principles as they would be with "citizens". This tacit approval of indefinite detention without charge or trial implicitly
undermines their arguments.
No government anywhere has the lawful authority to indefinitely detain any person without charge or trial. No constitution written by any form of
government can grant lawful authority to indefinitely detain any person without charge or trial. A constitution is merely a piece of paper. Law is
not merely a piece of paper. Legislation is merely a piece of paper. Legislation is not law anymore than a map is territory, a word the thing
defined, or a picture of a pipe is a pipe. Law is simple, true, universal and absolute. If it is law it applies to everyone everywhere.
The unalienable rights of all people are law. One of the unalienable rights of all people is the right to Due Process of Law. Constitutionally
speaking, the United States Federal government is bound by the Bill of Rights which makes no qualifications what-so-ever about citizenship. No one
need be a citizen of the United States in order to assert their unalienable right to Due Process of Law if they have been detained by the Federal
Government, regardless of the circumstances unless it is a military action under a Declaration of War.
This is an extremely complex problem that has shown brutal disregard for the effectiveness of simplicity. Simply speaking this Act of Aggression by
the U.S. government is unlawful. Navigating through the seas of legality is the complexity that can overwhelm the unprepared mind. The more prepared
one can be, by knowing the simple, true, universal and absoluteness of law, the easier it will be to keep it all simple. Simply speaking, the U.S.
government has never had any lawful authority to detain anyone without charge or trial regardless of this pretend "war on terror".