NDAA Resigned By Obama With Concerns; Does Not Mention Indefinite Detainment of American Citizens

By John Amaruso

 
Yesterday President Obama released a written statement addressing his concerns over the H.R. 4310 bill, also known as the "National Defense Authorization Act" or NDAA. The bill which contains over 680 pages of various appropriations to military personnel and vital security programs, was originally signed into law for the fiscal year 2012. It has been approved again for this fiscal year 2013.

While a majority of it's provisions are mundane and maintain essential military protocol, there are sections of the bill which many civil liberty unions and activists alike see as violating the constitutional rights of the American citizenry.

The President who had vocalized his reservations when first signing the bill in 2012, has doubled down on his prudence by releasing a written memo, stating each section he sees as unnecessary, unlawful and counter productive.

Below I have outlined a few key sections President Obama has made a point of addressing in the statement.

Paragraph 3
"...restrictions on the Defense Department's ability to retire unneeded ships and aircraft will divert scarce resources needed for readiness and result in future unfunded liabilities."
Defined: The bill rejects retiring outdated products such as fighter jets/naval ships which are unnecessary in today's contemporary wars. AKA we are spending money on frivolous expenditures while neglecting priorities for out military men and women.

Paragraph 5
"Section 1025 places limits on the military's authority to transfer third country nationals currently held at the detention facility in Parwan, Afghanistan... Decisions regarding the disposition of detainees captured on foreign battlefields have traditionally been based upon the judgment of experienced military commanders and national security professionals without unwarranted interference by Members of Congress."
Defined: Enemy combatants/prisoners of war have always been dealt with by military leaders according to mission goals/ultimate defined ends. By leaving this authority to Members of Congress, the whim of public opinion on elected officials could lead to brazen and unwise choices made by career politicians who seek nothing more than to be re-elected. Free of this burden, military leaders can make the harsh and necessary decisions void of the sway of often irrational public opinion.

Paragraph 6
"Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose."
Defined: While there was a huge backlash against the executive branch's desire to try terrorists in Federal court, there is a necessary and vital function of this. Federal court is a viable and effective setting to try and convict the enemies of the United States. It may well be the last legal channel in which this could happen. By disallowing this, in essence Guantanamo Bay remains as the only possible location for these detainees, hence the continuation of it's operations despite President Obama's election campaign promise of closing down the controversial camp. Not to mention this violates the separation of powers clause. Section 1028 continues this, hampering the executive branch's ability to transfer detainees to foreign countries in an attempt to hinder the President's plan of shutting down Guantanamo Bay.

While these remain legitimate concerns and problems for the President and his counter-terrorism forces, there is one issue he has failed to address; Section 1021 which gives the military authority to detain any American citizen indefinitely without rights of habeas corpus. President Obama in a signing statement declared that his administration would not abuse that authority.

It sure is reassuring now that the President says he won't abuse this power handed to him by the Congress... but what about the next guy? There will be a new President in 2016, may he be Republican, Democrat, maybe (I inject the utmost optimism) even a third party candidate. As long as this law remains on the books, successive leaders and officials could take advantage of such unprecedented powers. History shows us that this much more likely to happen than not.

Once a right is taken away, it is much harder to take it back. As shown by the signing of the NDAA, our rights to ourselves and our liberty are being undermined by the Pentagon and Congress. It's the ability of Congress and elected leaders to essentially "sneak in" a tiny provision into a 1000 page bill that frightens me and most freedom loving people around the world. If such a maneuver is lawful, what is stopping Congress from pulling the rug out from under us? These insidious means to strip away our rights makes it possible for Congress to design a necessary funding bill or law while sneaking in a line or two. In essence, Congress can hold the country hostage to it's will if it so pleases...

Wait a second...


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

Here's President Obama's statement in full- Read Below

Source provided by Tyrone Garcia



THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release January 2, 2013

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

         Today I have signed into law H.R. 4310, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013." I have approved this annual defense authorization legislation, as I have in previous years, because it authorizes essential support for service members and their families, renews vital national security programs, and helps ensure that the United States will continue to have the strongest military in the world.
         Even though I support the vast majority of the provisions contained in this Act, which is comprised of hundreds of sections spanning more than 680 pages of text, I do not agree with them all. Our Constitution does not afford the President the opportunity to approve or reject statutory sections one by one. I am empowered either to sign the bill, or reject it, as a whole. In this case, though I continue to oppose certain sections of the Act, the need to renew critical defense authorities and funding was too great to ignore.
        In a time when all public servants recognize the need to eliminate wasteful or duplicative spending, various sections in the Act limit the Defense Department's ability to direct scarce resources towards the highest priorities for our national security. For example, restrictions on the Defense Department's ability to retire unneeded ships and aircraft will divert scarce resources needed for readiness and result in future unfunded liabilities. Additionally, the Department has endeavored to constrain manpower costs by recommending prudent cost sharing reforms in its health care programs. By failing to allow some of these cost savings measures, the Congress may force reductions in the overall size of our military forces.
        Section 533 is an unnecessary and ill-advised provision, as the military already appropriately protects the freedom of conscience of chaplains and service members. The Secretary of Defense will ensure that the implementing regulations do not permit or condone discriminatory actions that compromise good order and discipline or otherwise violate military codes of conduct. My Administration remains fully committed to continuing the successful implementation of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and to protecting the rights of gay and lesbian service members; Section 533 will not alter that.
        Several provisions in the bill also raise constitutional concerns. Section 1025 places limits on the military's authority to transfer third country nationals currently held at the detention facility in Parwan, Afghanistan. That facility is located within the territory of a foreign sovereign in the midst of an armed conflict. Decisions regarding the disposition of detainees captured on foreign battlefields have traditionally been based upon the judgment of experienced military commanders and national security professionals without unwarranted interference by Members of Congress. Section 1025 threatens to upend that tradition, and could interfere with my ability as Commander in Chief to make time-sensitive determinations about the appropriate disposition of detainees in an active area of hostilities. Under certain circumstances, the section could violate constitutional separation of powers principles. If section 1025 operates in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will implement it to avoid the constitutional conflict.
         Sections 1022, 1027 and 1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which substitutes the Congress's blanket political determination for careful and fact-based determinations, made by counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, of when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation, and in certain cases may be the only legally available process for trying detainees. Removing that tool from the executive branch undermines our national security. Moreover, this provision would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.
         Section 1028 fundamentally maintains the unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch's authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This provision hinders the Executive's ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. The Congress designed these sections, and has here renewed them once more, in order to foreclose my ability to shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. I continue to believe that operating the facility weakens our national security by wasting resources, damaging our relationships with key allies, and strengthening our enemies. My Administration will interpret these provisions as consistent with existing and future determinations by the agencies of the Executive responsible for detainee transfers. And, in the event that these statutory restrictions operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will implement them in a manner that avoids the constitutional conflict.
        As my Administration previously informed the Congress, certain provisions in this bill, including sections 1225, 913, 1531, and 3122, could interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct the foreign relations of the United States. In these instances, my Administration will interpret and implement these provisions in a manner that does not interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct diplomacy. Section 1035, which adds a new section 495(c) to title 10, is deeply problematic, as it would impede the fulfillment of future U.S. obligations agreed to in the New START Treaty, which the Senate provided its advice and consent to in 2010, and hinder the Executive's ability to determine an appropriate nuclear force structure. I am therefore pleased that the Congress has included a provision to adequately amend this provision in H.R. 8, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which I will be signing into law today.
        Certain provisions in the Act threaten to interfere with my constitutional duty to supervise the executive branch. Specifically, sections 827, 828, and 3164 could be interpreted in a manner that would interfere with my authority to manage and direct executive branch officials. As my Administration previously informed the Congress, I will interpret those sections consistent with my authority to direct the heads of executive departments to supervise, control, and correct employees' communications with the Congress in cases where such communications would be unlawful or would reveal information that is properly privileged or otherwise confidential. Additionally, section 1034 would require a subordinate to submit materials directly to the Congress without change, and thereby obstructs the traditional chain of command. I will implement this provision in a manner consistent with my authority as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and the head of the executive branch.
        A number of provisions in the bill -- including sections 534(b)(6), 674, 675, 735, 737, 1033(b), 1068, and 1803 -- could intrude upon my constitutional authority to recommend such measures to the Congress as I "judge necessary and expedient." My Administration will interpret and implement these provisions in a manner that does not interfere with my constitutional authority.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,

January 2, 2013.

# # #

German Magazine Declares George H.W. Bush Dead

By John Amaruso

If only everything the media reported were true, we'd live in a much less confusing world. Unfortunately for the reputation of German Magazine Spiegal, their latest blunder adds to the conventional wisdom that the media makes more mistakes than they let off.

"Colorless" George H.W. Bush

Spiegal magazine accidentally published an obituary for former president George H.W. Bush. The 88 year old former President has been in and out of the hospital for bronchitis. His condition has been shaky but latest reports say he is in stable condition.

The obituary described the former President as "colorless" as shown in the photo they posted alongside the post.

Spiegal magazine apologized for the accident,citing faulty sources for the mistake.

Want to add insult to injury? The article was entitled "The Better Bush". Sorry W.

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.

Growing Challenges to Democracy in Myanmar

By John Amaruso

    The country of Burma, or better known as Myanmar, is in the midst of the often volatile transition to democracy. Like many countries, Burma is experiencing the growing pains of democratic rule. Governed under the brutal Military Junta since 1962, the thaw out from authoritarian rule to democracy has been a rocky one with few strides made.
    As inherent as the troubles of consolidating a democracy may be, this does not excuse some of the recent clashes between Burmese authorities and the citizens. A few incidents in the past few weeks demonstrate that the coming months for Burma will most certainly be tumultuous.
    Recent demonstrations at the site of a copper mine in Burma's Sagaing region led to authorities cracking down and arresting 7 protestors, including Moe Thwe, the leader of the protest. Meanwhile dozens of protesters were injured.
    Police claimed the protest became violent, a story which protesters deny. Police reportedly used tear gas, smoke bombs, and incendiary devices that burned several people.
    Farmers claim the deal was forced upon them by Than Shwe's Military Junta nearly 2 years ago and has ultimately led to the eviction of farmers from their land in favor of the China-backed project. The majority of profits from the copper mine would benefit the military in Burma, which still has significant power in the country.
    To top this off, a known political activist and former monk, U Gambira, who helped organize the 2007 anti-government protests, was detained by the government prior to the demonstrations. Many say this was an attempt by the ruling elite to prevent U Gambira's support of the now nation wide protest against the copper mine.
    Family members have attempted to visit him in Insein Prison, the location where officials claimed he would be. To their surprise, the prison officials denied he was being held there. His whereabouts are currently unknown.

Monk treated after suffering burns from Burmese police

  This back peddling of human rights comes only days after President Obama visited the country to congratule President Thein Sein on his political reforms and progress towards a transition to democratic rule. The significance of President Obama's visit should not be underscored- the trip made him the first American President to ever visit the country.
    The praise from President Obama comes after the release of political prisoners, the liberalization of the media, and the successful conducting of elections that have been a part of President Thein Sein's political reforms since taking office 18 months ago. Despite these positive first steps, many in the country claim it is merely a crack in a large wall preventing civilian rule in the country. The metaphoric wall being the military.
    The military's grip on power is being challenged by Aung San Suu Kyi, a former political prisoner, who was among those released in the wave of reforms. Aung San Suu Kyi, who was placed under house arrest for 15 years and became a symbol of Burma's democracy movement, won a seat in the Pyithu Hluttaw, the lower house of the Burmese parliament in 2012. Her party, the National League for Democracy, won 43 out of the 45 seats up for grab in the election.
    Her call for action against the oppressive Military Junta throughout the 80's and 90's has won her considerable praise from the international community, receiving awards and invitations from countries around the world.
    With all this said, can Burma truly become democratic? Small skirmishes such as the copper mine protests are not as uncommon as you may think. They happen in what are considered fully consolidated democracies.
    Take the U.S. for example. Protesters at Occupy Wall Street were pepper sprayed indiscriminately by police without warrant of force. Bills have been proposed by sitting senators to ban protesters from public areas such as Federal building sites. The NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) signed by President Obama allows for the abduction and closed military trial of any U.S. citizen anywhere under the broadly defined 'suspicion of terrorism or terrorist related activities'. Meanwhile, Freedom House rates America as one of the best functioning democracies in the world.
    Can Burma become a democracy? It can. With the right circumstances, Burma can push through the door that was unlocked when the Military Junta ceded power in 2011. If those that are in power are willing to let the people decide the fate of their nation, then and only then, will true democracy be brought to Burma.
   

History In The Making- Marijuana's Legalization

Tonight, at midnight, in both the Mountain and Pacific Time Zones, history will be made. For the first time in 75 years, marijuana will be legal for recreational use in two states in the U.S., Colorado and Washington. 

On election day 2012, voters in both states voted on a referendum which legalized marijuana. Tonight those laws go into effect.

For us on the East Coast it will occur at 2 and 3 am.

History in the making folks.

A message from NGNJ.