Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

Better Believe It

(18,630 posts)
Thu Mar 1, 2012, 03:23 PM Mar 2012

Naomi Wolf: "U.S. is sleepwalking into becoming a police state ... the president can lock up anyone" [View all]





The NDAA: a clear and present danger to American liberty
The US is sleepwalking into becoming a police state, where, like a pre-Magna Carta monarch, the president can lock up anyone
February 29, 2012


Yes, the worst things you may have heard about the National Defense Authorization Act, which has formally ended 254 years of democracy in the United States of America, and driven a stake through the heart of the bill of rights, are all really true. The act passed with large margins in both the House and the Senate on the last day of last year – even as tens of thousands of Americans were frantically begging their representatives to secure Americans' habeas corpus rights in the final version.NDAA critics say that it enables ordinary US citizens to be treated like 'enemy combatants' in Guantánamo.

It does indeed – contrary to the many flatout-false form letters I have seen that both senators and representatives sent to their constituents, misleading them about the fact that the NDAA destroys their due process rights. Under the act, anyone can be described as a 'belligerent".

And with a new bill now being introduced to make it a crime to protest in a way that disrupts any government process – or to get close to anyone with secret service protection – the push to legally lock down the United Police States is in full force.

Overstated? Let's be clear: the NDAA grants the president the power to kidnap any American anywhere in the United States and hold him or her in prison forever without trial. The president's own signing statement, incredibly, confirmed that he had that power. As I have been warning since 2006: there is not a country on the planet that you can name that has ever set in place a system of torture, and of detention without trial, for an "other", supposedly external threat that did not end up using it pretty quickly on its own citizens.

Read the full article at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/29/ndaa-danger-american-liberty


-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Leaders From Across Political Spectrum Unite to Oppose NDAA
Written by Joe Wolverton, II
February 24, 2012


This liberty-extinguishing legislation converts America into a war zone and turns Americans into potential suspected terrorists, complete with the full roster of rights typically afforded to terrorists — none.

A key component of this reconciled bill mandates a frightening grant of immense and unconstitutional power to the executive branch. Under the provisions of Section 1021, the President is afforded the absolute power to arrest and detain citizens of the United States without their being informed of any criminal charges, without a trial on the merits of those charges, and without a scintilla of the due process safeguards protected by the Constitution of the United States.

Further, in order to execute the provisions of Section 1021 described in the previous paragraph, subsequent clauses (Section 1022, for example) unlawfully give the President the absolute and unquestionable authority to deploy the armed forces of the United States to apprehend and to indefinitely detain those suspected of threatening the security of the “homeland.” In the language of this legislation, these people are called “covered persons.”

The universe of potential “covered persons” includes every citizen of the United States of America. Any American could one day find himself or herself branded a “belligerent” and thus subject to the complete confiscation of his or her constitutional civil liberties and nearly never-ending incarceration in a military prison.

Read the full article at:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/10982-leaders-from-across-political-spectrum-unite-to-oppose-ndaa


-----------------------------------------------------------------------



An execrable ancestor
By Bruce Fein
Bruce Fein is a constitutional lawyer who served as an associate deputy attorney to President Ronald Reagan and is a senior adviser to the Ron Paul 2012 campaign.
February 28, 2012


The execrable ancestor of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA) is the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Frederick Douglass protested, “Under this [Fugitive Slave] law the oaths of any two villains (the capturer and the claimant) are sufficient to confine a free man to slavery for life.” Under the NDAA, the suspicion of the president is sufficient to confine an American citizen to military detention for life without accusation or trial. The twin laws make for an alarming tale.

The NDAA defiles due process more egregiously than did the Fugitive Slave Act.Section 1021 empowers the military to detain for life without trial any American citizen captured in the United States whom the president maintains is “substantially support[ing] … al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces” engaged in hostilities against “coalition partners” of the United States. None of the key terms in section 1021 are defined to constrain the president’s power to disappear Americans into dungeons at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere. “Al Qaeda” is undefined. “The Taliban” is undefined. “Associated forces” is undefined. “Coalition partners” is undefined. “Substantially supporting” is undefined. The words can mean whatever the president, like Humpty Dumpty, wants them to mean. “Substantial support” might be said to include any criticism of the United States government for flouting the Constitution in combatting international terrorism.

The president is crowned by the NDAA with untrammeled authority to decide the proof and method for the executive branch to determine whether an American is substantially aiding al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces against a coalition partner. There is no judicial involvement. In sum, under the NDAA the president may imprison for life any American citizen for an alleged linkage to international terrorism against coalition partners of the United States on his say-so alone — the very definition of tyranny articulated by James Madison, father of the Constitution, in Federalist No. 47.

The NDAA emerged from the Senate and House Armed Services Committees without a single hearing. The Judiciary Committees waived jurisdiction. Only 13 senators voted against the sacrilege to due process. The statute is naked of findings that the awesome power lodged in the president was necessary to cure a deficiency in existing laws. It was enacted more than a decade after the 9/11 abominations, when it was known that no American citizen on American soil who substantially supported al Qaeda had ever eluded prosecution and punishment in the criminal justice system before any American in America had been harmed.

Read the full article at:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/28/an-execrable-ancestor/

84 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If the response to this thread is any indication, I see what she means. Comrade Grumpy Mar 2012 #1
Naomi Wolf NAILED IT. WE have to STOP this NOW Vincardog Mar 2012 #2
Holy crap! What do we do?? GreenPartyVoter Mar 2012 #3
Watch reality tv and go shopping! nt JNathanK Mar 2012 #23
Wait ProSense Mar 2012 #4
The statute is what it says. If Obama didn't believe he'd use the power, he wouldn't sign it. leveymg Mar 2012 #65
You'd be right, The Doctor. Mar 2012 #72
If he was unwilling to sign the Bill, it would be returned to Committee to strip out those sections leveymg Mar 2012 #73
And they'd send it back with even worse shit in it. The Doctor. Mar 2012 #74
No, Democratic Senate majority. Have you ever actually worked on Capitol Hill? leveymg Mar 2012 #75
So you're saying that what you described is *exactly* what would happen? The Doctor. Mar 2012 #79
What certain people believe and shouted since this came up. Justice wanted Mar 2012 #5
It's only a big deal if there is a (R) behind the presidents name. eom Puzzledtraveller Mar 2012 #6
Uh, one of the copy and pastes is from MineralMan Mar 2012 #7
I have a broken watch that is correct at 12:18 every day! What do you make of the main article? Dragonfli Mar 2012 #10
When I read editorial writing, I always look to see where the writer MineralMan Mar 2012 #12
What about writers that contribute to the FR, do you dismiss their input. bahrbearian Mar 2012 #39
I haven't read FR for years. MineralMan Mar 2012 #42
All good questions bahrbearian Mar 2012 #45
And oddly enough Bruce Fein was a hero to the Left when he came against Bush's anti-Constitutional sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #32
Here's the thing: I oppose parts of NDAA, too. I think it is a very MineralMan Mar 2012 #35
So a bad bill has a couple of parts that your Ok with, so lets pass it? bahrbearian Mar 2012 #47
A couple of parts? Have you seen the bill? MineralMan Mar 2012 #67
That doesn't address the point of the OP. Not to mention the fact that you could say Bush sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #58
And none of that addresses the point of the OP. sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #62
Fantastic post. Yes! A passionate voice. Kaleko Mar 2012 #84
You're attacking the messenger, not refuting the message. Logical error. Fail. leveymg Mar 2012 #66
We put away the repubs socialindependocrat Mar 2012 #8
Can you imagine if all this was in place during Nixon? nc_gadfly Mar 2012 #9
Shouldn't it be a TOS violation to use a Reaganite Ron Paul advisor to attack Democrats?...nt SidDithers Mar 2012 #11
You'd think so, wouldn't you. MineralMan Mar 2012 #13
I don't hold it against them if they're Ron Paul suppoters. JNathanK Mar 2012 #25
What ProSense Mar 2012 #26
Obama is a Hypocrite by your definition, bahrbearian Mar 2012 #48
Exactly bahrbearian Mar 2012 #49
Absolutely telling (and pathetic) that attacking the messenger is what you do Bonobo Mar 2012 #31
For ProSense Mar 2012 #36
Did you call Bruce Fein a tool when he went after Bush? Airc, Fein was a big hero sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #80
Indeed. woo me with science Mar 2012 #41
You want to censor someone who was a hero on DU for standing up against his own party sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #57
So Alert on it, Sid, and see if you get a majority of a DU jury to agree with you. leveymg Mar 2012 #68
+1 L0oniX Mar 2012 #83
Should be. Bobbie Jo Mar 2012 #78
Still stalking Better Believe It I see. Did you alert on it yet? My bet is that it will stand. L0oniX Mar 2012 #82
I'm no Paul supporter davidthegnome Mar 2012 #14
Naomi Wolf NOT Naomi Klein Quantess Mar 2012 #15
Too bad these are just voices in the wilderness. bvar22 Mar 2012 #16
I don't care if she is a Ron Paul supporter. I am too, only to the extent he doesn't want war... JNathanK Mar 2012 #24
+1 bahrbearian Mar 2012 #51
The Ron Paul freakout is a symptom of malignancy in the party. woo me with science Mar 2012 #61
Oh, that's OK. Obama will certainly veto any bill that includes indefinite detention. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2012 #17
But the ACLU is always complaining about violations of the Constitution and stuff. Better Believe It Mar 2012 #18
I know. They're just professional leftist troublemakers who don't toe the party line. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2012 #19
don't they realize this is an election year!!1 frylock Mar 2012 #28
I heard the ACLU was comprised of nothing but rabid Ron Paul supporters!!! Dragonfli Mar 2012 #64
The language is just too murky and even downright missleading. JNathanK Mar 2012 #55
K&R woo me with science Mar 2012 #20
This will not end well. n/t Moondog Mar 2012 #21
What begins poorly often ends poorly. MineralMan Mar 2012 #27
and president obama's signing statement won't mean jack shit to the next republican admin frylock Mar 2012 #29
Yes, that's true, but we have almost 5 years before that happens. MineralMan Mar 2012 #30
i think you're being delusional if you believe the republicans will never inhabit the white house.. frylock Mar 2012 #46
Is Obama's signing statement proof against further Presidents as well? nt Bonobo Mar 2012 #33
Of course not. But, the NDAA, which authorizes defense spending MineralMan Mar 2012 #38
Really? The REAL question is what am I doing, Mineral Man? Bonobo Mar 2012 #40
See the link below: MineralMan Mar 2012 #43
Nope, not interested. Bonobo Mar 2012 #44
Not many here have over 26,000 posts over there and call themselfs liberal bahrbearian Mar 2012 #50
Signing statements aren't binding not even on the signer TheKentuckian Mar 2012 #34
Nobody SHOULD be held without trial. MineralMan Mar 2012 #37
It sucks for the the POTUS Really? bahrbearian Mar 2012 #52
Killing People used to be limited by the Constitution, until when? bahrbearian Mar 2012 #53
Kick woo me with science Mar 2012 #22
k & friggin r! wildbilln864 Mar 2012 #54
I clicked on this thread, hoping against hope, MadHound Mar 2012 #56
Naomi Wolf "eloquently educated all of us on the perils of unchecked crony capitalism"?... SidDithers Mar 2012 #59
Yeah, ProSense Mar 2012 #70
Naomi Wolf, Naomi Klein, Matt Taibbi, Jeremy Scahill, Michael Moore the list is long sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #60
+100000. nt riderinthestorm Mar 2012 #63
Kick woo me with science Mar 2012 #69
Over the top, sensationalistic, typical. The Doctor. Mar 2012 #71
I disagree.. I don't think people are "sleepwalking" SomethingFishy Mar 2012 #76
Bruce Fein is legit dreamnightwind Mar 2012 #77
Yes, it says something, not about him, but about anyone who would now try to sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #81
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Naomi Wolf: "U.S. is...