Dear Fellow Friends in Liberty,

On December 31st, 2011 President Obama outdid Hitler by signing the National Defense Authorization Act. In the past, the NDAA has been used by Congress to authorize defense spending through the Department of Defense. However, this act includes a provision (Section 1021) that allows the President and the U.S. military to detain U.S. Citizens on U.S. soil without due process and without a trial indefinitely; just on the ‘suspicion’ that they are members of a group that the U.S. government has deemed a terrorist threat. The U.S. can do this secretly and without notice. Not only does this violate the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments of the U.S. Constitution; it suspends posse comitatus (18 U.S.C. § 1385) a long standing tradition that prevents the militarization of our country. Many fascist governments historically have used these type of laws to eliminate political opposition (think Soviet gulag), and even worse: genocide.

Fortunately in Virginia, Delegate Bob Marshall (R-13) introduced House Bill 1160 (HB 1160) which “Prevents any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency or the armed forces of the United States in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of a United States citizen in violation of the Constitution of Virginia.”

This is a huge step in promoting civil liberties and future oppression by the tyrannical U.S. government, and Virginia is the first state of hopefully many that has introduced this legislation. Presented and referred to Subcommittee on January 16th, it passed 6-3 on January 25th. The full text of the bill reads
“Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. § 1. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of law, no agency of the Commonwealth as defined in § 8.01-385 of the Code of Virginia, political subdivision of the Commonwealth as defined in § 8.01-385 of the Code of Virginia, employee of either acting in his official capacity, or any member of the Virginia National Guard or Virginia Defense Force, when such a member is serving in the Virginia National Guard or the Virginia Defense Force on official state duty, may engage in any activity that aids an agency of or the armed forces of the United States in the execution of 50 U.S.C. 1541 as provided by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (P.L. 112-18, § 1021) in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of any citizen of the United States in violation of Article I, Section 8 or 11 of the Constitution of Virginia.”

The next step is a vote in the House Courts of Justice Committee. Passage through that will allow a vote on the House floor. Legislation like this will never pass General Assembly without a strong public outcry, so I strongly ask you right now to first forward this email to your friends and family; and then reach out to each and every member of this Committee and urge them to vote in favor of our freedom. (list below).

Your friend in liberty,

Mike Kane
At-large Board Member - Libertarian Party of Northern Virginia

http://lpnova.blogspot.com/2012/02/unconstitutional-detainment-stops-here.html


***********************************************************************
Chair: Delegate David B. Albo (R) - House District 42

(804) 698-1042
email: DelDAlbo@house.virginia.gov


Delegate Robert B. Bell (R) - House District 58

(804) 698-1058
email: DelRBell@house.virginia.gov


Delegate Benjamin L. Cline (R) - House District 24

(804) 698-1024
email: DelBCline@house.virginia.gov


Delegate C. Todd Gilbert (R) - House District 15

(804) 698-1015
email: DelTGilbert@house.virginia.gov


Delegate Jackson H. Miller (R) - House District 50

(804) 698-1050
email: DelJMiller@house.virginia.gov


Delegate G. Manoli Loupassi (R) - House District 68

(804) 698-1068
email: DelMLoupassi@house.virginia.gov


Delegate Ronald A. Villanueva (R) - House District 21

(804) 698-1021
email: DelRVillanueva@house.virginia.gov


Delegate Rick L. Morris (R) - House District 64

(804) 698-1064
email: DelRMorris@house.virginia.gov


Delegate Vivian E. Watts (D) - House District 39

(804) 698-1039
email: DelVWatts@house.virginia.gov


Delegate David J. Toscano (D) - House District 57

(804) 698-1057
email: DelDToscano@house.virginia.gov


Delegate Charniele L. Herring (D) - House District 46

(804) 698-1046
email: DelCHerring@house.virginia.gov


Delegate Jennifer L. McClellan (D) - House District 71

(804) 698-1071
email: DelJMcClellan@house.virginia.gov

They vote on this Friday. So it's important to take action now

Mike Kane Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They vote on this Friday. So it's important to
> take action now

I'm sorry - you've already invoked Hitler so, per Godwin's law, this thread is already over.

I hope all those who say you have nothing to worry about if you're not a terrorist get paid a visit by Uncle Sam and locked up "indefinitely".

Outdid Hitler, come on that just makes your post on an extremely important subject look ridiculous. I'm no fan of the current joke sold to us at great cost at "historic"- check my posts-but rational discussion and eventual repeal of this provision is too important to turn off any persons interested by using
such worn out and hyperbolic phrases. The continual erosion of our civil liberties by both major parties largely goes unnoticed by the public because
big media is almost totally in the pocket of of their expensive purchases in
all three branches of govt.I applaud your intent ,but not you method.

Original poster is an idiot respouting other idiots who don't know what they are talking about, or are purposely trying to mischaracterize the 2012 NDAA in order to use it as a hit against Obama.




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.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40;
50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces
of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection
(b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section
is any person as follows:
(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 a part of or substantially supported
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged
in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or
has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
forces.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may
include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until
the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for
Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States
Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009
(title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent
tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country
of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—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.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—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.
(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—The Secretary
of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application
of the authority described in this section, including the organizations,
entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’
for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

The Act was strongly opposed by the ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch and The Center for Constitutional Rights.

Al Jazeera has written that the Act "gives the US military the option to detain US citizens suspected of participating or aiding in terrorist activities without a trial, indefinitely."[


You couldn't be more wrong also. The issue is indefinitely detention without trial, so while someone can argue point E all day, they will still sit in prison

You know what's interesting about this NDAA argument, is that no matter where it's come up online, the response to posting the actual, real text of the bill results in the EXACT same response:

The ACLU thing.

I'm convinced at this point that this NDAA arguement is being sourced from one specific location that has given "marching orders" to it's minions directing people to post this dumb ass NDAA thing over and over in an attempt to create a dig against Obama.


The ACLU happens to be incorrect on this subject.

I don't give a shit what Al Jazeera may have said at some point in the past.

The fact of the matter is that per the actual, signed bill as posted above, the military can not arrest & detain you as a citizen of the US no more so than they could have prior to the NDAA being signed.

I posted the actual, real text of the bill as signed into law that clearly states the bill DOES NOT do something.

Your response is that Al Jazeera said it does.

When did they stop teaching sourcing or fact checking in high school. Jesus.

Al Jazeera said you're wrong. There. Will you stop arguing this now?

I'm posting the actual bill, the actual text directly from the signed bill. Matter of fact, here's the link to the actual bill:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf

Direct me to the line that specifically says the military is authorized to arrest & detain US citizens.

I'll wait.

Look, Obama like all politicians wants it both ways .He wants to be able to say that he tough on terrorism but also a defender of civil liberties. He has authorized the execution of American citizens on foreign soil by remote control drones with missiles without any criminal charge or trial.This is irrefutable fact. His predecessor was no better, but the erosion of basic civil rights continues under both parties. This is much bigger than which of the corporate owned candidates you or anyone else supports. It's not about
your guy winning -whoever your guy is .This is about ALL the American people retaining the rights that used to make being an American unique in the world.
Adopting totalitarian policies one at a time as all oppressive govts. have throughout history is intolerable in America.and should be an outrage to all those who aspire to true freedom .Sellout "leaders" no matter how "historic"
should not be supported no matter their political party.It amazes me how these
two concepts get so confused in the minds of otherwise intelligent people.We were all raised on advertising and the reason coporations/politicians pay billions for it is because it works. Break free and think for yourself and don't get led by celebrity spokespersons of any stripe.

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until
the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for
Use of Military Force.

Done arguing with you.

The facts are the facts, this is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL act.

To all people please write the aforementioned delegates and urge them to support HB 1160

Mike Kane Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> To all people please write the aforementioned
> delegates and urge them to support HB 1160


Done and done, even donated money!!!!!

blake lane 73 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...He has authorized the execution of American
> citizens on foreign soil by remote control drones
> with missiles without any criminal charge or
> trial...

Rules of war seldom work well with civil rules - I do not have a problem with taking out an enemy during time of war, though I'm not particularly fond of war.

I've often wondered why spies are executed. I don't have a problem, though, with "fighting back" against someone trying to kill me or mine.

Mike Kane Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> (1) Detention under the law of war without trial
> until
> the end of the hostilities authorized by the
> Authorization for
> Use of Military Force.
>
> Done arguing with you.
>
> The facts are the facts, this is an
> UNCONSTITUTIONAL act.
>
> To all people please write the aforementioned
> delegates and urge them to support HB 1160

Ok...

You are clearly misquoting specific sections without regard for their context.

I'll put this in clear, layman terms:

Section 1021(a):

This affirms the authority of the President to detain & try anyone that meets the criteria in section B and that the President will deal with these people who meet the criteria in section B, according to the rules in Section C.


Section 1021(b):

The people this applies too are foreign nationals deemed a terrorist, who are not captured on US soil.

In the case of the person being a US citizen, a US legal resident, or anyone captured on US soil, that person will be handled via our established court of law/constitution.

Section 1021(c):

If you capture a foreign national terrorist on foreign soil, you will handle them by detaining them until the end of the hostility & then either trying them in our court of law or transfering them elsewhere to be tried in a court of law.


Nowhere in there are US citizens or legal residents covered under this act. As a a matter of fact, they are clearly delineated as NOT being covered under this act.

Regardless, we don't need VA resources enforcing any portion of it

Mike Kane Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Regardless, we don't need VA resources enforcing
> any portion of it


No, what we don't need is our state government wasting time on a topic like this because of a clear inability to read & understand the actual law that was passed.

The fact that this is even being discussed at my state government level has be quite concerned because it indicates that our lawmakers are either unable to read laws themselves, or they are engaging in trivial partisan politics for the media.

When we as a nation realize that the people we label `terrorists are fighting back against those that have killed them and their families-namely us and our corrupt puppets wordwide-then we will be have hope for resolving this issue. By the way how many armies and weapons of foreign govts. do you see in America How many U.S. troops weapons in other countries Maybe this will lend clarity
to this subject.

Article VI, Clause 2.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

HB 1160 is per se unconstitutional.

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Article VI, Clause 2.
>
> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United
> States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;
> and all treaties made, or which shall be made,
> under the authority of the United States, shall be
> the supreme law of the land; and the judges in
> every state shall be bound thereby, anything in
> the constitution or laws of any state to the
> contrary notwithstanding.
>
> HB 1160 is per se unconstitutional.


I just find the whole thing ridiculous. The entire NDAA arguement is a Paulbot fabrication designed to be used to ding Obama, and by extension, the Republican establishment.

Anyone with two eyes and half a brain can read the bill, in it's entirity, and clearly see exactly what is said. It's right there in plain english, who's covered, who isn't & what's supposed to happen.

Now to supposedly see state lawmakers wasting time on this utter crap, it's maddening.

where de white wimmin at?

> I just find the whole thing ridiculous. The entire
> NDAA arguement is a Paulbot fabrication designed
> to be used to ding Obama, and by extension, the
> Republican establishment.
>
> Anyone with two eyes and half a brain can read the
> bill, in it's entirity, and clearly see exactly
> what is said. It's right there in plain english,
> who's covered, who isn't & what's supposed to
> happen.
>
> Now to supposedly see state lawmakers wasting time
> on this utter crap, it's maddening.

I'm not one to blindly watch the Government act out against the interest of it's citizens but I have to agree with you. This is a wild goose chase over nothing and I've really got to question what my State government is doing if it's playing petty partisan politics instead of fixing our roads.

This is a red herring but I think you're probably arguing with an idiot who can't read plain written English.

I haven't seen the bill itself. Only posts here.Why are we in a constant state of undeclared war for the last 60 yrs and why doesn't anyone care about that?

Doesn't matter. Federal law trumps state law.

Attached is a powerpoint presentation which shows the NDAA DOES ALLOW FOR THE INDEFINITE DETENTION OF AMERICANS

Non lega folks are pulling out random sentences, don't know legalese and don't look at the bill as a whole.


THis presentation should open your eyes, especially yours, Duhhhhhh

COL POWELL'S CHIEF COUNSEL LAWRENCE WILKERSON CALLED THE NDAA THE ROAD TO TYRANNY.
So you non legal folks need to shut up and listen
Attachments:

What I meant to with my bill is this:

You have the right to be water boarded until you confess.

I hope this clears up any confusion.

Osama Obama

HB 1160 Unlawful detention of U.S. citizens; prevents any agency, etc., from assisting in investigation.

02/10/12 House: Reported from Courts of Justice with substitute (16-Y 0-N)

Passed 16 - 0 with 2 abstain

How do you think Gen. Colon Bowel feels about his last minute endorsement of
his brother now? We haven't heard much from him since he changed his lifelong party allegiance based on emotional factors. Has he also "come out" after a
life of living a lie? Please ,let's go back to don't ask don't tell.