Archive for National Defense Authorization Act

Senate Unanimously Passes 2013 NDAA; Power to Arrest Americans Remains, abortion provisions added

Posted in NDAA with tags , , , , , , , , , on December 6, 2012 by saynsumthn

H/T New American
Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.


Just after 5:00 p.m. Tuesday, the Senate did it again. By a vote of 98-0 (two senators abstained) lawmakers in the upper chamber approved the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Not a single senator objected to the passage once again of a law that purports to permit the president, supported by nothing more substantial than his own belief that the suspect poses a threat to national security, to deploy the U.S. military to arrest an American living in America.

As The New American reported, an amendment to the 2013 version of the defense spending bill passed by the Senate clarified the right to trial of “citizens and permanent legal residents” detained under the relevant sections of the revamped measure.

The amendment, known as the Feinstein-Lee Amendment, was cosponsored by Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), and Rand Paul (R-Ky.). In an interview Tuesday with The New American, spokesmen for Lee and Paul admitted that the amendment did not go far enough in the defense of due process, but said it was a step in the right direction.

“Colored by our experience with the due process amendment to the NDAA we offered in 2012, we knew that we would have nowhere near the number of votes needed to pass an amendment that guaranteed due process for all persons detained under the NDAA,” explained Doug Stafford, chief of staff for Rand Paul.

Stafford and Rob Porter, general counsel for the office of Senator Lee, reiterated that they recognize that the Feinstein-Lee Amendment was not the ideal attack on the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA. Senators Lee and Paul believe, the spokesmen assured The New American, that “the full panoply of due process rights should apply to all persons, not just American citizens.”

For now, however, the NDAA 2013 is almost law, and the president’s power to send troops to arrest Americans living in America remains intact and unabridged. That is rightfully terrifying to constitutionalists, journalists, and any other American who fears being kidnapped by the military and indefinitely detained.

Read Rest here

The Feminists are lauding this legislation, because it will allow Military victims of rape to receive military abortions.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards released the following statement applauding the Senate passage of the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes language authored by Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) granting military women insurance coverage for a wide range of reproductive health care services, including abortion when a pregnancy results from rape or incest.

“Today, the Senate took strides toward correcting an injustice that military women have faced for years. The Shaheen amendment approved today in the National Defense Authorization Act corrects years of inequity, brings military health care in line with the rest of the federal government, and ensures that military women have access to the health care coverage they deserve.

Big Brother wants to read your e-mail and Texas bill may Nullify NDAA Detention and TSA screening

Posted in Alex Jones, Big Brother, NDAA, Privacy, TSA with tags , , , , , , , , on November 21, 2012 by saynsumthn

A Senate proposal touted as protecting Americans’ e-mail privacy has been quietly rewritten, giving government agencies more surveillance power than they possess under current law.

CNET has learned that Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access to Americans’ e-mail, is scheduled for next week.

Leahy’s rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies — including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission — to access Americans’ e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge. (CNET obtained the revised draft from a source involved in the negotiations with Leahy.)

It’s an abrupt departure from Leahy’s earlier approach, which required police to obtain a search warrant backed by probable cause before they could read the contents of e-mail or other communications. The Vermont Democrat boasted last year that his bill “provides enhanced privacy protections for American consumers by… requiring that the government obtain a search warrant.”

Leahy had planned a vote on an earlier version of his bill, designed to update a pair of 1980s-vintage surveillance laws, in late September. But after law enforcement groups including the National District Attorneys’ Association and the National Sheriffs’ Association organizations objected to the legislation and asked him to “reconsider acting” on it, Leahy pushed back the vote and reworked the bill as a package of amendments to be offered next Thursday. The package (PDF) is a substitute for H.R. 2471, which the House of Representatives already has approved.

One person participating in Capitol Hill meetings on this topic told CNET that Justice Department officials have expressed their displeasure about Leahy’s original bill. The department is on record as opposing any such requirement: James Baker, the associate deputy attorney general, has publicly warned that requiring a warrant to obtain stored e-mail could have an “adverse impact” on criminal investigations.

Christopher Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said requiring warrantless access to Americans’ data “undercuts” the purpose of Leahy’s original proposal. “We believe a warrant is the appropriate standard for any contents,” he said. REST HERE

MEANWHILE:

State lawmakers in Texas are fighting to reassert their citizens’ Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment rights. Republican legislators have submitted two bills, one to remove the indefinite detention provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and the other to stop the intrusive screening procedures of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

HB149, the Texas Liberty Preservation Act filed by state Rep. Lyle Larson, targets the most controversial provisions of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. The online Huffington Post reports,

HB 149 specifically calls out Section 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA, which were recently subjects of a federal lawsuit filed by plaintiffs concerned that the language within the passages could be used to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens.

In October, a federal appeals court rejected the notion that the indefinite detention provisions found within the NDAA pose a reasonable threat to American citizens and blocked an injunction issued by another judge in May who had determined that the NDAA did not “pass constitutional muster.”

According to the appeals judges, “the public interest” outweighed the concerns raised by the plaintiffs. They determined that “the statute does not affect the existing rights of United States citizens.”

Lawmakers in the Lone Star State disagree. According to HB 149, sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA are “inimical to the liberty, security, and well-being of the citizens of the State of Texas” and violate both federal and state constitutions. READ REST HERE

National Defense Authorization Act struck down then appealed by Obama admin

Posted in Constitution, NDAA with tags , , , , , on September 14, 2012 by saynsumthn

Judge Katherine Forrest, a New York federal judge, struck down a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act that allows Americans to be indefinitely detained just for being accused of supporting terrorist groups. The ruling was in response to a lawsuit brought by journalists and scholars who were concerned that the NDAA would allow them to be indefinitely detained for speaking their minds. Judge Forrest’s ruling reaffirms a ruling she issued back in May against the indefinite detention provision.

The National Defense Authorization Act has been quite controversial because it includes provisions that permit the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens. While the Obama administration and supporters of the NDAA had denied that the provisions found within the Act pertain to American citizens, analysts noted that there was no language in sections 1021 or 1022 of the Act — wherein the indefinite detention provision can be found — that exempted U.S. citizens.

Several lawmakers made efforts to combat the indefinite detention provisions.

Representative Adam Smith (D-Wash.), for example, wrote an amendment that would have required any suspected terrorists caught in the United States or its territories to be tried in civilian courts. He was joined by Congressmen Ron Paul of Texas, Justin Amash of Michigan, and John Garamendi of California.

The complaint of the lawmakers and other opponents was not simply that it violates the constitutional right to a trial but also that it doesn’t work.

“In the last 10 years, we have successfully prosecuted — tried and convicted — over 400 terrorists,” Smith said. “Even as we sit here today, there are over 300 terrorists in U.S. prisons.”

Smith’s amendment failed. ( Read Rest Here )

Within 24 hours of a historic court ruling that struck down the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act, the Obama administration has appealed the ruling, emphasizing once again how the White House – while claiming to be against the measure – has aggressively pushed for it at every turn.

The suit was brought by activists and journalists, including former New York Times columnist Chris Hedges, who argued that the law was unconstitutional because it could see journalists abducted and detained merely for speaking their minds.

In “permanently” halting the enforcement of the law, Forrest noted how the plaintiffs presented “evidence that First Amendment rights have already been harmed and will be harmed by the prospect of (the law) being enforced. The public has a strong and undoubted interest in the clear preservation of First and Fifth Amendment rights.”

However, the very next day the Obama administration reportedly moved to appeal the decision in an attempt to reinstate the indefinite detention provisions.

Read more here

Trayvon Martin Protestors Learn Of Eugenics

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , on March 29, 2012 by saynsumthn

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Trayvon Martin Protestors Learn Of Eugenics, posted with vodpod

SOUND CRAZY?

But there is a conspiracy to limit black births: Watch Maafa21

Ron Paul describes NDAA calls for its repeal

Posted in NDAA with tags , , , , on January 20, 2012 by saynsumthn