Friday, December 16, 2011


By KrisAnne Hall
December 16, 2011
auf_cryinglibertyToday, on the 220th anniversary of the Bill of Rights, Congress overwhelmingly voted to effectively extinguish those rights. They relinquished their claim to lawful authority by violating Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution and granting license to the Executive Branch to become the very tyrannical dictatorship our Founding Fathers fought and died to escape. Congress' betrayal has now set America firmly upon the path of pathetic banana republics and fearsome totalitarian states, with the knock on the door in the dead of night, the disappearances – where political dissidents can be suppressed, silenced or left to rot in unknown prisons. Today, I grieve for my country.

This gaping wound to our liberty MUST not stand. My earlier, straightforward analyses of Sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) make it clear why.
  1. Congressmen Claimed The Bill Specifically Limited Actions Of The US Government To Al-Qaeda And Taliban Terrorists Involved In 9/11 Aggression

    False. This refers to: Sec. 1031(b) Covered Persons: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed , or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition forces…

    Which continues:

    …including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
  2. Congressmen Claimed Section 1032 Does Not Cover US Citizens.

    False. Section 1032(2) states that the requirement to detain an individual applies to someone who has been determined to be "a member of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda: and to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners."

    Which continues, section (4) "The Secretary of Defense (Leon Panetta) may, in consultation with the Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton) and the Director of National Intelligence (James R. Clapper), waive the requirements 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."
  3. auf_handcufffenceCongressmen Claimed Section 1032(b)(1) Specifically Excludes US Citizens

    False. Section 1032(b)(1) states, "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States." What this section says is the REQUIREMENT to detain doesn't extend to US Citizens, but the OPTION does. That means they don't have to detain them, but can if they want to!
Congressional and Obama Administration supporters of this bill do not WANT to protect the rights and civil liberty of US Citizens.
I even did some follow up on just days ago regarding the misinformation on the Feinstein Amendment. And here, on the 220th Anniversary of the Bill of Rights, I can't help but wonder what has happened to truth?
I would like to know how Congress can justify just one hour of debate over revoking something that is so fundamental and so important as our right to habeas corpus, and presume to enact something so controversial, and so questionable into law as this travesty. I truly enjoyed Congressman Jerrold Nadler's argument on the floor. He pointed out that many Constitutional jurists and military experts are vehemently opposed to this bill, positing the very destruction of our rights we are trying to protect from terrorist attack. He also did an amazing thing; he shut down the argument that Congress needed to pass this bill with these sections so the military would get urgently funded. He explained that they had plenty of time to fail the bill, take out these malignant provisions, bring the bill back and pass it before the end of the week. What would be so hard about that? Why couldn't they do just what Rep. Nadler proposed? Because too many did not want to.
As I watched these debates and listened to the arguments over the last few days, I became very perplexed at how those who deny the specified language of this bill can do so with such conviction. There is breathtaking dishonesty associated with what they are saying. Time and time again I have heard that this bill specifically excludesUS Citizens. NO, IT DOES NOT. You have to be illiterate or purposefully disingenuous to put forth such an argument. The relevant section specifically says: "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States." Legally speaking, stating that an agency is "not required" to do something is the very same as saying they have the choice of doing so or not. If the drafters of this legislation truly wanted to exclude US Citizens from having their Constitutional rights stripped, the lawyers should have, and would have, used the type of language found in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)(2), the section that contains religious exemptions for employment practices or the various religious and medical exemptions that exist from state to state for things like vaccinations. They are experienced legislators; they know that!
Furthermore, section 1032(4) specifically provides a military waiver anytime national security dictates a need! "The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirements 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." There you have it. All limitations fly out the window if the government determines a "national security interest."
auf_shreddingconstitutionThis morning I found a jewel, and a light bulb came on in my mind. I was in the middle of a twitter argument over this bill and this person was absolutely adamant that the language of the bill stated that military detention was "inapplicable to US Citizens or US lawful resident aliens." I finally asked my new twitter friend to send me a link to the bill because I could not find that language. What I got was a link to the Bill Summary and Status, the CRS Summary. I could not believe what I was seeing. The summary put out by Congress describing this bill was a blatant misrepresentation of the bill itself. The CRS Summary stated that section 1032 had specific language that said the detention provisions were "inapplicable to US Citizens." That not only is not an accurate summary, it is a bold-faced lie – blatant propaganda! The language, "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States" is not even close to saying detention is inapplicable to US Citizens. How many Congressmen just read the summary and based their entire vote on that lie?
The thing I find most frustrating is knowing that I am not the only one out there seeing and shouting the truth. I have heard statements by Sen. Rand Paul, Sen. Mike Lee, and others. I watched the debate in Congress. I know YOU and other patriot citizens have been contacting their Congressmen and Senators, DEMANDING action. I really believe if at least a handful of people have enough information to make an informed and educated decision, there is no excuse to believe a lie. And there is certainly no excuse to settle for a lie.
Yet, that is where we are unless we FORCE CONGRESS TO FIX THIS BILL.
Listen to these words of Justice Blackstone, as quoted by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper 84.
"'To bereave a man of life, [says he] or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government. 'And as a remedy for this fatal evil he is everywhere peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas corpus act, which in one place he calls 'the BULWARK of the British Constitution.'"
This is EXACTLY what these provision in the NDAA do. We do not have to keep these provisions to fund the military. They are completely irrelevant to that need.
The truth is out there. You have a responsibility to it. Our elected Congressmen and Senators have a responsibility to it. Don't let them get away with promulgating a distortion and destruction of that truth. DEMAND THEY FIX THIS TERRIBLE LEGISLATION, AND RESTORE OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES!
We must know that we cannot have peace from terrorism without having liberty in America! Don't sell our liberty for a little temporary security. It is not our liberty to sell. Our Founding Fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor for ages and millions not yet born. This liberty belongs to our children, our grandchildren, and their children.

Keep Faith,
Lynne Roberts, President
Americans United for Freedom

auf_KrisAnneHallLogoKrisAnne Hall is a former prosecutor and Constitutional attorney who was fired from her job for teaching the Constitution to citizen groups. She is a disabled veteran of the US Army, a Russian linguist, a mother, a pastor's wife and a patriot. Her former employer, State Attorney for Florida's 3rd Judicial Circuit, gave her a choice – give up her First Amendment right to speak on her own time or be fired. KrisAnne said, "My First Amendment rights are worth more than a paycheck and I will not surrender them." She now travels the country and teaches the Constitution and the history that gave us our founding documents. We are proud to have KrisAnne as a contributor to Americans United for Freedom.
To send a check, please complete and print a contribution page form
and mail it with your donation to this address:
Americans United for Freedom
PO Box 1310
Herndon, VA 20172

No comments:

Post a Comment