National Defence Authorization Act
Get flash to fully experience Pearltrees
It looks like there is slick little trick brewing in Congress. Supporters of locking people up without charge or trial are getting ready to play yet another trick on the American people. Late yesterday, Congressman Scott Rigell and 26 other members of Congress introduced a bill, H.R. 4388, which he is trying to sell to the American people as a "fix" for the National Defense Authorization Act . But in fact, it is a useless bill that might actually end up causing harm. That's right. The plan in the House of Representatives seems to be to try to fool Americans into thinking that they are fixing the indefinite detention problems with the NDAA and the Authorization for the Use of Military Force , when in fact, they are doing nothing good.
A computer forensic examiner looks for evidence on hard drives at the Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center in Linthicum, Md., on Aug. 11, 2011. (Cliff Owen/AP Photo) Update (4/26): An earlier version of this story said a proposed amendment by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., had helped gain support for CISPA. Schiff’s amendment, which among other things would further define what’s considered a "cyber threat," is no longer scheduled for consideration. The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act  , up for debate in the House of Representatives today, has privacy activists, tech companies, security wonks and the Obama administration all jousting about what it means – not only for security but Internet privacy and intellectual property.
On Dec. 31, 2011, while Americans celebrated the arrival of the new year, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act ( NDAA ). This was nothing unusual in and of itself, as Congress approves an annual defense spending bill. What made the 2012 NDAA particularly newsworthy are sections 1031 and 1032, which allow the president to use U.S. military forces to indefinitely detain American citizens who are merely suspected of having involvement with a terrorist organization. For those largely unfamiliar with the NDAA controversy, I will cite a portion from a previous article detailing the controversy: Section 1031 of the bill begins: “Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pending disposition under the law of war.” The “covered persons” are defined as:
Outside a home state office of Senator John McCain , a hand written protest sign read “NDAA = Death To Due Process” . Outside the office of U.S. Representative John Carter , the signs warned, “Carter Wants You In Prison” , and declared in red, white and blue designs, “NDAA – Take This Law And Shove It” , and “Remember Your Oath?
We reported yesterday that the past decade has seen unprecedented growth in the number of U.S. drones flying the skies over Iraq and Afghanistan. With unfettered access to the occupied air space and burgeoning technology, the American UAV fleet has swelled beyond what was imagined before the wars. Now, with ground operations concluded in Iraq and scheduled to end in Afghanistan by 2014, those new drones will be coming home and their pilots will need a place to fly them and train. Which could be why Congress is calling for the accelerated use of unmanned drones in U.S. air space. Steven Aftergood at FAS dug up the authorization bill before the Federal Aviation Administration requiring the agency to put “a comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system” within nine months.
According to a recent article , military custody is counterproductive and the numbers do not lie. The article is authored by Briant Michael Jenkins, who is an expert on terrorism and transportation security.
The post 9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force is at the root of many evils including an Imperial Presidency, unconscionable drone strikes and unconstitutional indefinite detention under NDAA 2012. We have been calling on you to rise up against the indefinite detention provisions of NDAA 2012 since corporate fascist puppet Democratic president Barack Obama signed it into law on New Year’s Eve 2011. NDAA 2012 is only one symptom. AUMF 2001 is the disease.
The Intellihub Nile Bowie February 6, 2012 For anyone paying attention, there is no shortage of issues that fundamentally challenge the underpinning moral infrastructure of American society and the values it claims to uphold. Under the conceptual illusion of liberty, few things are more sobering than the amount of Americans who will spend the rest of their lives in an isolated correctional facility – ostensibly, being corrected.
On a Tea Party Patriots conference call, Constitutional lawyers were on describing the threat to our liberty the NDAA bill poses, along with how it goes against what our Constitution and Founding Fathers intended. We need a start point for what we can do at the local level to tell our federal government that we do not approve, do not want and do not need certain aspects of the NDAA bill. I am referring to those inclusions that turn the United States into a "battlefield" where American citizens can be detained by the military and sent to a military commission and trial. The bill's wording has opened another Pandora's Box where, due to ambiguity, people like ourselves can be subjected to wartime detainment and military trial. The Constitution is getting put more through the shredder every day and nearly all in Congress went along with this monstrosity of a bill.
January 11, 2012 By Jeanne Roberts As a result of the December 31 presidential signing of the National Defense Authorization Act ( NDAA ; H.R. 1540), the Department of Defense, or DOD, is prohibited from funding any LEED Platinum or Gold certification of new buildings for the current fiscal year, unless it submits notification of intent 30 days before the money is allocated. The only exception to the rule is if LEED Gold or Platinum certifications don’t involve additional expense. Under the same legislation, the DOD is required to submit a report to Congress (Sec. 2830) no later than June 30 on energy efficiency and sustainability standards used by the Department. This analysis is to be conducted with equal consideration for ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers) building requirements (189.1-2011, and 90.1-2010), ANSI (American National Standards Institute) accredited standards, and LEED certification.
On Thursday (December 15, 2011) , Congress gave the President sweeping new power to detain American citizens indefinitely, without charge or trial. A provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) empowers the President to detain anyone who “substantially supported” groups he determines are “associated forces” of terrorists. The provision at issue, sec. 1021, was tucked into an 1800-page conference report that was shuttled through Congress in a matter of days. Given the complexity and weight of the issue, I was interested to read House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon’s post on RedState explaining the bill’s detention policy. Unfortunately, the post is almost useless because it muddles two separate provisions of the NDAA.
Have you ever asked yourself why your combat boots have to be made in the USA but not your running shoes? If so, you’re not the only one. It seems that some members of Congress have been asking the same thing of our military services. The answer?
In his statement on the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) last month, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) spoke out against the law’s authorization of indefinite detention without trial. Calling the detention provisions “unwise and unnecessary,” Leahy criticized the NDAA’s dismissal of constitutional principles, the law’s national security implications, and the inadequate transparency throughout the bill’s passage. Leahy’s criticism of the NDAA reflected some of the same concerns articulated by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). Though supporters of indefinite detention suggest that such measures are appropriate during times of war, Leahy fires back, “That does not mean that we should be a Nation without laws, or a Nation that does not adhere to the principles of our Constitution.” Leahy also argues that this law will affect our international standing, as indefinite detention “severely weakens our credibility when we criticize other governments for engaging in similar conduct.”
By Andrew Lohse, Contributing Columnist Published on Monday, January 9, 2012 Richard Nixon only got it half right when he wrote during the Reagan years: “At present we occupy a treacherous no man’s land between peace and war, a time of growing fear that our military might has expanded beyond our capacity to control it and our political differences widened beyond our ability to bridge them.” Nixon’s words were those of a man who had nothing left to lose – American presidents seldom have the wherewithal to speak the truth until they have left office.
By Andy Worthington -- (January 7, 2012) Before the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, there were only two ways of holding prisoners — either they were prisoners of war, protected by the Geneva Conventions, or they were criminal suspects, to be charged and subjected to federal court trials. That all changed when the Bush administration threw out the Geneva Conventions, equated the Taliban with al-Qaeda, and decided to hold both soldiers and terror suspects as “illegal enemy combatants,” who could be imprisoned indefinitely without charge or trial, and with no rights whatsoever.