[I-S] S. 1867 (NDAA) and Marco Rubio

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: julie

 

Excerpted from Leo Donofrio's weblog posting on the NDAA (S. 1867).   As to the facts, either the analysis he presents here is a good one or it's not.  But I think that the general tenor of alarm is well warranted, although whether we are more likely to lose our liberty by the enactment of martial law instead of via quiet but inexorable encroachments isn't clear.  
To deny the danger, though, is to be like Baldwin in the 30's.  Anyone who's paying the slightest attention must know the danger is there....  
McCarthy and Donofrio agree that the bill doesn't actually say anything that wasn't already enacted.  
J.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/12/05/martial-law-the-fix-is-in/#comments 


MARCO RUBIO'S SLANTED POSITION ON SB 1867.

Rubio erroneously claims that the bill does not deny habeas corpus to US citizens:

"In particular, some folks are concerned about the language in Section 1031 that says that this includes "any person committing a belligerent act or directly supported such hostilities of such enemy forces."  This language clearly and unequivocally refers back to Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or its affiliates.  Thus, not only would any person in question need to be involved with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or its surrogates, but that person must also engage in a deliberate and substantial act that directly supports their efforts against us in the war on terror in order to be detained under this provision.  There is nothing in this bill that could be construed in any way that would allow any branch of the military to detain a law-abiding American citizen if you go to the local gun store or grocery store."

Bunk!  Notice Rubio's qualifier "to detain a law-abiding American citizen".  What about citizens who break the laws protesting?  What about peaceful demonstrations of civil disobedience?  What if citizens dispute that the conduct even breaks the law?  This guy should never get near the White House (and he's not eligible).  His statement above is so blatantly misleading, I can only wonder if he anticipates being drunk with power should the country continue its ignorance of the natural-born citizen clause and one day elect him.

Acts of Congress are interpreted by the courts directly pertaining to the words used in the act itself, and not by the speeches of big brother doublespeak cheerleaders such as Rubio.  Mr. Rubio is an attorney who knows better.  His statements above are not naive, nor are they stupid.  They are carefully crafted doublespeak from a rising star in the political scene who knows how to skillfully crap from both sides of his mouth.

Let us examine the relevant provisions:

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

First note the title, "Affirmation of Authority".  This bill is simply elucidating the powers already held by the President.  It "affirms" his authority, but such an affirmation is not necessary if he already has the authority.  So whether this bill passes or not, the President still has the authority to carry out the things mentioned in this bill.  Therefore, this is simply a dog and pony show, and if Obama does veto it, he still has the power to do anything the bill states.

If Obama were truly a man of the people, besides vetoing this bill, he would push through a bill which renounces all of the power that this ugly bill "affirms".  Until such a law is enacted, his veto, like this bill, changes no law already in effect.

You can see this more clearly in Sec. 1301(e):

(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

Now let's turn to Sec. 1032(b)(1):

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

That sounds re-assuring, doesn't it?  Except for one thing, folks.  It only applies to "this section".  The protection against military detention pertains only to section 1032.  It does not apply to Section 1031 whichlists various forms of restraint.  If the military detention prohibition for US citizens from Section 1032 applied also to Section 1031, there would be no need for both sections to contain separate provisions for "covered persons".  But 1031 and 1032 are independent sections and the prohibition against detention of US citizens does NOT apply to those citizens detained under 1031, which provides:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force."

While "military detention" is the specific form mentioned in1032, Section 1031 affirms the authority of detention generally.  This includes non-military detention.  Such detention could be potentially in a FEMA or DOD concentration camp.  Those are civilian divisions and detention therein is not military detention.  However, Section 1031(c)(1) provides for indefinite detention of anyone including US citizens, and this section does not include the prohibition against military detention in 1032.  Therefore, 1031 provides for both military and non-military detention of US citizens.

Rubio knows this and his comments are parsed carefully in this regard.  It's so very creepy how these bastards cast their legislative spells.  Rubio didn't lie.  He simply used a language most citizens don't understand or even know exists – federal doublespeak, or fedspeak.  This is how they stand there with a straight face.  It's not a lie, but it acts just like one.  When Bill Clinton said, "It depends on what the meaning of is is…", he was talkin' fedspeak.

As you will see from his insidious delicate parsing, Rubio knows all too well that the two sections work independently.  First he referred specifically to 1031(b)(2):

"(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."

Covered persons under this act include a "person who… supported al-Queda, the Taliban, or associated forces…including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities…"  If the statute used the word "and" here, instead of "or", then Rubio might have a point on this issue.  But the word "or" clearly indicates that a person is guilty of violating the act even if that person has not "directly supported" the hostilities of al-Qaeda, the Taliban etc.  The statute only requires a belligerent act, it does not require the person to be a part of al-Qaeda or to directly support al-Qaeda.  Indirect support is enough according to the statute.

Words matter.  The definition of  "belligerent" includes:  "a warlike or aggressively hostile nature, condition, or attitude."

Therefore, if you are a person who has publicly expressed a spirited dis-belief in the official 911 story, it can be argued that you have exhibited a hostile attitude about the official story.  If you don't believe al-Qaeda was ultimately responsible for the towers falling, and that the government has covered up truth – ie, that the towers fell as a result of a controlled demolition – the government might assert that you have supported al-Qaeda.

If you doubt al-Qaeda's ability to have pulled this atrocity off, then the government might argue that you are defending al-Qaeda.  Your statement/blog may qualify as a belligerent act even though you have never expressed any direct support of al-Qaeda.  Under this construction, you could truly hate al-Qaeda, but if the belligerent act appears to support al-Qaeda in any way, that may be enough to trigger the statute.

But this statue isn't limited to al-Qaeda or the Taliban.  It also covers anyone who substantially supported "associated forces" engaged in "hostilities" against the US or its coalition partners.

The normal definition of "hostilities" includes, "opposition or resistance to an idea, plan, project".  Therefore, speech is a form of hostility under this statute.  But so is thought.  As the statute is written, even singular mental opposition to an idea, plan, or project qualifies as hostilities.  Nebulous terms are chosen by these legislative vampires to be purposely evasive and universally inclusive.

I don't really give a crap what the statute was meant to cover, Mr. Rubio.  I care what it does, in fact, cover.  One thing we have learned as a nation is that judges are more than capable of fitting meaning into statutes which lay persons could never imagine in their wildest dreams.  Moreover, the rule of statutory construction in our courts looks first to the meaning of the words used in the statute, and there is a presumption that the words mean what they say.  I have given you a clear example of how the words in this statue could be used against those expressing doubt in the official 911 story.  But that's only one example.  We don't know who "associated forces" covers as well.  And the bill includes no statutory definition of "hostilities" either.

And finally, this statute is so poorly written that one possible construction of it could include any belligerent act not tied to al-Qaeda or the Taliban at all.  The words, "including any person who has committed a belligerent act"… may refer back to subsection (b), and not to the first part of subsection (2).  By this I mean that covered persons referred to in (b) are listed in (2), and these include those involved with al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but perhaps also any person who committed a belligerent act.  It's not hard to imagine some court crafting just that meaning if they wanted a person bad enough and this was the only way to ensnare him.

The wording of this statute sucks.  And Marco Rubio's cheerleading for it also sucks.  I do not trust this guy at all because of his statements on this issue.  He's learned the DC doublespeak well, has this one.  The forked tongue force be strong with him.  Watch him parse without abandon as he carefully works his magic concerning Section 1032:

"Section 1032 of this bill concerns a smaller group of people who Congress feels are required to be detained by the US military because people who fit within this criteria are a more serious threat to our national security.  Any person detained under Section 1032 must be a member of, or part of, Al-Qaeda or its associates AND they must have participated in the planning or execution of an attack against the US or our coalition partners.  Simply put, the application of this detention requirement is limited to Al-Qaeda members that have tried to attack the US or its allies.  However, this detention requirement is clearly limited by a clause that states that the requirement to detain does not extend to US citizens or lawful permanent residents."

He's very careful here to limit his discussion in this paragraph to Sec. 1032, while 1031 is avoided.  This is because 1031 is the section which truly guts habeas corpus, not 1032.  These gargoyles in DC speak a language designed to accomplish mis-direction with the eloquence of Houdini.

Habeas corpus is at the heart of the nation.  It literally means, "You may have the body".   And it's got 93 daggers stuck in it today.

This Martial Law affirmation comes on the heels of the Congressional Research propaganda I wrote about in my last report.  Two alarms have gone off.  Be warned, America… martial law is coming.

Obama will probably veto the bill, but like I said above, the bill is only an affirmation of existing powers.  His veto will not change those pre-existing laws.  The veto will make him look like a good guy, so that when Obama does reach for these horrific powers, those who support him will point back to this veto to show that he was always against suspension of habeas corpus, etc.  But the excuse will then surface that, "an emergency we simply did not foresee has come to pass and the President must now use all of his powers to defeat the enemy".

This is a dog and pony show.  Nothing happens without these federal freaks knowing about it first.  Martial law is coming and they are setting up the script now.

.   .   .

naturalborncitizen Says: 
December 6, 2011 at 1:44 AM

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/terrorism/july-dec01/jr_09-14.html 

This states the "use of force" resolution… which makes "harboring" "such organizations or persons" responsible for 911 available for execution… But the definition of "harboring" includes:

"To entertain or nourish (a specified thought or feeling): harbor a grudge."

Therefore, again, if you "harbor" the idea that al-Qaeda did not bring down the Towers… one might be covered under the resolution. Like I said, the terms of these draconian measures are purposely nebulous.

Then there's the Patriot act as well. My point was that since 911 the government has been issuing these directives with nebulous language that is designed with catch alls to ensnare who they like.

Measures with implications that would involve the indefinite detention of US citizens are unconstitutional.

A case involving the meaning of the word "harbor" could happen. If they want you bad enough, they will use these vague orders as best they can.

This is America and I don't give a crap how bad the alleged crime is… citizens are entitled to due process of law. Either the system works or it doesn't… for all crimes. If a person is a terrorist, we have laws to convict them and we have a jury system. Our system is as good as it gets. These measures seem to indicate that the government does not believe in the jury system and that it can't be trusted. Too damn bad. This is the US and citizenship means total control of the US Constitution, not draconian paranoid measures which avoid the Constitution.

Bush is guilty of this rape of habeas corpus and he does not get a pass from me. I realize that many people who support this blog do not agree. But the people trying to destroy this nation are grateful that you don't agree.

Leo

naturalborncitizen Says: 
December 6, 2011 at 1:52 AM

Also, keep in mind the ti

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.