The NDAA Lives On; The Consititution in Peril

 

 

 By John Amaruso

Sen. Dianne Feinstein and others in Congress attempted to pass an amendment which would have protected American citizens from indefinite military detainment aka the denial of rights of Habeas Corpus. It was later replaced with a different provision, which ultimately deferred the responsibility of protecting individual rights on the Supreme Court. 

The bill was rejected on the grounds that the Supreme Court and the Constitution already protect these rights. Senator Dianne Feinstein reacted to the loss by saying-

 “I was saddened and disappointed that we could not take a step forward to ensure at the very least American citizens and legal residents could not be held in detention without charge or trial," Feinstein said. "To me that was a no-brainer.”

The amendment originally proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein was as follows;

Senator Dianne Feinstein

"An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention"

This is almost common sense to most Americans who understand the Constitution. The 4th amendment of the Constitution which protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure, was later modified by John Adams, who thought it appropriate to define what he meant by "unreasonable".

"Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. All warrants, therefore, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation; and if the order in the warrant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places, or to arrest one or more suspected persons, or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special designation of the persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure: and no warrant ought to be issued but in cases, and with the formalities, prescribed by the laws."

While John Adams thought this added clarification of the 4th amendment was appropriate and necessary, those in today's Senate beg to disagree.

The rationale from leaders in the Senate is that there is no need to double down since those rights are already protected under the law of the land. While this may be true, the Patriot Act openly disregarded those fundamental rights and sought to alter what is "reasonable". 

The NDAA's language is a bit more vague. An extension of the Patriot Act, the authority of the President under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorism, a joint resolution passed in the wake of 9/11, includes the power to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person (including U.S. citizens), has changed the definition even further as to what "reasonable" is. They have defined sufficient cause as anyone who is 

1. Associated with Al-Qaeda or seen as harboring or aiding in Al-Qaeda war efforts.
2. Any "Belligerent act" against the United States or its coalition allies in aid of such enemy forces.

Not only this, the act authorizes trial by a military tribunal or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin", or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity" until hostilities commence.

Mind you, one does not have to be convicted- one merely has to be suspected. 

Can someone define what a "Belligerent act" is? Or is that left to the discretion of the military tribunal which under this law, is your only form of due process permitted? 

To top this off, what defines the hostilities as being over? This is a "Global War on Terrorism" as former President Bush liked to eloquently put it. Within those words, "Global War on Terrorism", lies an insidious intention on behalf of those who govern. It implies that this war is not only confined to us, but to all citizens everywhere. It implies that 'terrorism' is an active war between states and peoples. Both of these implications mean that this "war" may have no end in sight.

Seeing that terrorism has plagued most civil societies since the beginning of man's path towards civility, when will be the end of terrorism? Who can officially declare that the "war" on terrorism is over? Then again, what exactly is terrorism? Does it come in a specific form? Is terrorism only when someone affiliated with a radical Islamist organization commits a violent act against civilians and military personnel? 

What about denunciations of government actions? The foundation and reasoning for all insurgencies everywhere. Is that openly advocating or supporting terrorism? 

Is being "belligerent" marching through the streets? Actively demonstrating? Openly calling out the government for errors in judgment, crimes against humanity, suppression and corruption? Is that terrorism? Because any smart enough government lawyer could successfully argue for it.

What we are seeing here is a foggy, widely interpretable bill with dangerous implications which threaten us all. With the right of due process and Habeas Corpus being suspended in an effort to combat an endless war on terrorism, the inalienable rights given to us by our founders and which most of the world revere us for are being eroded by those who are sworn to protect them. 

 

 

 

Martial Law Announced for Arkansas Town Beginning 2013

by Kenny Brown

We hear it every day on the news and read it on radical political sites about how the US Government is full of Nazi's or fascists or new age Hitlers, etc. Glenn Beck screamed it for a couple years before people finally got sick of seeing his face every day. But once in a while these people are pointing fingers at a real situation. Surprisingly no one in the TV news media has covered the most recent real situation of a police state coming to fruition in Arkansas.
     The mayor of Paragould, Arkansas., Mike Gaskill and Police Chief Todd Stovall supported a plan to begin in 2013 that would arm local police with AR-15's and decking them out in SWAT gear. On top of that theatrical Orwellian act the plan also includes stopping and checking the ID of anyone walking around town, for any reason, whenever. Some of the best parts of this whole absurd situation are the actual quotes Police Chief Stovall:

"This fear is what's given us the reason to do this. Once I have stats and people saying they're scared, we can do this. It allows us to do what we're fixing to do."

"If you're out walking, we're going to stop you, ask why you're out walking, check for your ID. To ask you for your ID, I have to have a reason."

"Well, I've got statistical reasons that say I've got a lot of crime right now, which gives me probable cause to ask what you're doing out. Then when I add that people are scared…then that gives us even more [reason] to ask why are you here and what are you doing in this area."

     For once I might have given a tip of the hat to the shock fest TV news ... if they actually talked about it when it was really happening.

3D Printers Allow Consumer to Print Out ANY 3D Object; For Example, Assault Rifles.

The 3D Printer

By John Amaruso


When I first heard that there was a new product on the market called a "3d printer", I was bit confused. A 3d printer? What the hell is that? What could that even mean?

Manufacturers have designed a printing device that can literally 'print out' 3d objects. Yes, that's right- anyone can literally create; I mean, print, any object one could desire. This new product has the capacity to create some of the simplest of things, like let's say household tools, I.E. a wrench, to household items like dinner plates. It also has the capacity to build the most complicated of objects; like an acoustic guitar, or a bicycle.

Unreal? I know. Science fiction has some catching up to do.

But while this device has the ability to do amazing things like turning the average joe into an in house manufacturer of their own products, this device, like most new technologies, has been manipulated for more insidious purposes.

The device can also be used to manufacture weapons- yes, weapons.

Actual gun printed out by 3D printer

It's been reported that owners of the 3d printer have successfully "printed out" a real and functioning assault rifle.

The weapon when fired has the same deadly force as a weapon that is manufactured by an arms company.

The scariest part of this whole thing- the parts of the weapon (the core that essentially makes the gun 'fire') is the part that needs to be regulated by the government to ensure no illegal sales are made by/to underground markets.

That whole problem was solved with the advent of printing your own untraceable and fully functional assault rifle.

I will leave you with this-
Technology has officially outpaced human rationale.

How does the amazing 3D printer work? Check it out here.