As a result of my zealousness during the 2008 elections, I'm known and respected as a political blogger, but I actually prefer writing about music, concerts, sporting events, muscle cars, and Harley-Davidson motorcycles. I've delved into a few political issues this year but must admit that I rarely watch television and for the most part I've acquired an absolute naivety regarding politics.
So imagine my astonishment when a friend, politician, and icon in the community asked my opinion regarding the recent passage of the National Defense Authorization Act 2012. I admitted my lack of expertise in the matter then dove into the subject for many hours of intense research.
I know that we are currently seeing a ton of sensationalism and hype on the internet regarding the passage of this bill and how it limits our civil rights so please take the time to read my interpretation in the following letter in response to my friend:
Hi Rodney,
Thanks for looking toward me for help on this matter and I apologize for my naivety yesterday in regard to it. Please keep in mind that I am not a lawyer nor a politician. I'm just a guy with an inquisitive mind that likes to study controversial subjects. I lean conservatively politically and I am a fundamental Christian so unfortunately my opinions are tainted and biased a bit as I am only human, although I do try to stay objective.
This bill that was recently signed by the President is essentially the same Defense Authorization Act that's been signed by the President every year for the last 48 years although some significant changes were implemented after 9/11 in regard to Al-Qaeda operatives specifically and the military was granted the ability to detain them almost indefinitely.
This Bill was huge (565 pages) and I waded through it a bit last night and a little more this morning. Everything was handled in typical political fashion regarding compromise and edits. The original bill introduce in the House was 29,542 words, grew to 230,298 words when it hit the Senate, and ended up a whopping 245,071 words when Obama signed it.
It appears that what most people seem upset about are some news articles and blogs that were published while the bill was still in the Senate being revised. I hate to say this because I align with him well ideologically but it looks like the Ron Paul camp actually perpetuated the propaganda. The president, as well as the governor of every U.S. state has always been authorized to implement martial law and suspend habeus corpus. It has happened numerous times in history most notably during reconstruction after the Civil War, in the state of Hawaii during all of World War II, and in Louisiana after the devastation and chaos created by Hurricane Katrina.
What a lot of people are upset about now is Section 1031 of the Senate version of the bill which ended up actually being Sections 1021 and 1022 of the Act signed by the President. This occurred when Ron Paul subversively announced that this was contrary to the Bill of Rights and gave the President the right to implement martial law. But the President has always had this power.
Obama increased the tension and anxiety over this controversy when he made some incredibly stupid comments right before he signed it. As much as I dislike his policies, I feel that in this particular situation after he had threatened to veto the bill, he was trying to play along and be non-partisan since an overwhelming majority of both the House and the Senate approved it.
There are at least 10 mentions in the entire Act that exclude American citizens and legal residents, twice mentioned in these two controversial sections, but the wording is ambiguous and the grammar is poor. I could see the possibility of things for this to be read out of context and the President insisting he has unlimited power to implement martial law but that's certainly not the intent and I cannot imagine that happening on our soil although I do recognize that things like this have happened throughout history.
This excerpt from the law in the controversial section 1021 seems very clear to me:
"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."
The U.S Constitution, The Bill of Rights and more than 200 years of other laws and case precedence would have to be somehow overthrown or overturned before any President of our country could obtain absolute power.
If we desire true change for our country, then I feel that our energy may better be expended by seeking a candidate that has the potential to beat Barack Obama in the next election. He's performed poorly, most educated and informed people predicted it, and now it's time for his replacement.
I hope this helps. If you want me to dig into this any more, please let me know.
Sincerely,
John
3 comments:
I don't share your political or religious affiliation, but I agree with your position on this bill.
I think the paranoia surrounding this bill says more about us as a splintered country than it does the grammar of the bill itself. Overall, it reflects our "dis-ease" that walls are closing in on our freedoms and that an absolute Orwellian reality is imminent under a future manipulative and exploitative leader. We are scared of the future due to having already endured 10 years of economic, political, and military uncertainty.
I also agree that Ron Paul's camp helped fan this flame of fear. Interestingly, Al-Jazeera elaborated on this spin and propaganda as well.
It seems simple enough to me to alleviate all personal concern over this bill by not being a terrorist or partaking of terrorist activities.
As has already been mentioned, the authority purportedly bestowed by this bill is not new and repetitive exemptions within the bill should afford the average law-abiding US citizen to sleep well at night.
Thank you for the comment. I only mentioned my political and religious affiliation because I understand that as a human, that will bias my opinion. I have read and witnessed on the news a continued sensationalism of this event which is shocking to me. I think most people that are up in arms about it have not actually read the bill.
Obama has issued his NDAA Signing Statement. Here is mine:
Americans must not be distracted by Corporate Fascist Puppet Barack Obama saying "my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens" in his signing statement for the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (H.R.1540). Presidential "signing statements" are political propaganda with no Constitutional basis. A President who breaches a signing statement covenant faces no more consequences than any other corrupt politician who renegs on a promise. By signing NDAA and attempting to give its unconstitutional provisions the force of law, Barack Hussein Obama became complicit with all of the bought-and-paid-for U.S. Senators and Representatives who voted for this bill, and along with them should be charged with Seditious Conspiracy under U.S. Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 115 Section 2384. Unless and until these vermin are arrested, charged and removed from office, I will no longer consider the government they infest to be legitimate. Nor will I respect any ruling to the contrary from a judicial system that grants rights of citizenship to corporate entities that treat settlements and penalties for criminal conduct as costs of doing business with no concerns about incarceration or execution to deter their illegal, immoral or unethical conduct.
No more Left. No more Right. Time to Unite. Stand and Fight!
IronBoltBruce via VVV PR ( http://vvvpr.com | @vvvpr )
Post a Comment