Why Is the Media Lying About New NDAA Power for Indefinite Military Detention of Americans? At some point a sideshow to a story becomes so painfully obvious that it becomes the story, and this now should be: Why is the media taking such pains to knowingly and falsely claim that the new power of the military to detain and imprison people without charge or trial, for life, does not include US citizens?
We know what happened. The Bill of Rights has been overturned. And enough has been written on the deceptive language first warned of by Congressman Justin Amash, when he told The Grand Rapids Press that the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was "carefully crafted to mislead the public," for newspaper editors to know better. Carl Levin. We're sorry.
The page you are looking for could not be found. You may have followed a bad link, used an outdated bookmark, or it may have moved to another part of the ACLU.org website. C:\DOCUME~1\mc48427\LOCALS~1\Temp\s1867es. » The Indefinite Detention Bill DOES Apply to American Citizens on U.S. Soil Alex Jones. Washington’s Blog Wednesday, December 14, 2011 Even at this 11th hour – when all of our liberties and freedom are about to go down the drain – many people still don’t understand that the indefinite detention bill passed by Congress allows indefinite detention of Americans on American soil.
The bill is confusing. Senate Session. How America And The Mainstream Media Got Breitbarted On NDAA. An edited video of Carl Levin claiming that Obama wanted the language in the NDAA caused outrage among many Americans, but the full Levin video reveals the opposite.
The YouTube video claimed to be proof that Obama is going to sign a citizen imprisonment law: However, in the first 30 minutes of the debate Sen. Three myths about the detention bill - Glenn Greenwald. Condemnation of President Obama is intense, and growing, as a result of his announced intent to sign into law the indefinite detention bill embedded in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
These denunciations come not only from the nation’s leading civil liberties and human rights groups, but also from the pro-Obama New York Times Editorial Page, which today has a scathing Editorial describing Obama’s stance as “a complete political cave-in, one that reinforces the impression of a fumbling presidency” and lamenting that “the bill has so many other objectionable aspects that we can’t go into them all,” as well as from vocal Obama supporters such as Andrew Sullivan, who wrote yesterday that this episode is “another sign that his campaign pledge to be vigilant about civil liberties in the war on terror was a lie.” In damage control mode, White-House-allied groups are now trying to ride to the rescue with attacks on the ACLU and dismissive belittling of the bill’s dangers. Demand NDAA is ABOLISHED AGAINST AMERICAN CITIZENS WE DEMAND DETAINMENT FOR TREASON FOR ANYONE WHO SIGNED THE BILL Petition.
December 1st, 2011, the US Senate accomplished the unthinkable–with the nearly unanimous passage of the National Defense Authorization Bill of 2012–THEY COMMITTED TREASON.
Crafted in secret by the Senate Armed Services Committee, the newly minted NDAA contains three sections which collectively sanctions INDEFINITE DETENTION of alleged terrorists or ‘terrorist sympathizers’–ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD INCLUDING THE USA– AND DESIGNATES the military the duty to arrest, imprison and ‘GITMO-IZE’ the accused civilians here on Main Street.
Ironically, the abuse of civilian Iraqis by our military and by military contractors (read MERCENARIES) is coming to a locale near you. McCain says American Citizens Can Be Sent to Guantanamo. U.S. citizens beware: A bill being debated on the Senate floor this week is likely to pass, and if it becomes law, you could be sent to Guantanamo Bay.
The bill is the National Defense Authorization Act, S. 1867. Section 1031 of the bill gives the President and the Armed Forces enormous power to detain people they believe were involved in the attacks of Sept. 11 or supported Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or “associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” That section empowers the President to detain such persons indefinitely without trial or to try them before a military court or to transfer them “to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.”