40 Members Of Congress Protest ‘Indefinite Detention’ Bill

Legislation set for final vote Thursday

Paul Joseph Watson
Wednesday, December 14, 2011

40 members of Congress have sent an urgent letter to House and Senate Armed Services Committee leaders protesting provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act that would legalize indefinite detention of American citizens without trial, as the revised version of the bill heads for a final vote on Thursday.

“The Senate-passed version of the NDAA, S. 1867, contains Section 1031, which authorizes indefinite military detention of suspected terrorists without protecting U.S. citizens’ right to trial. We are deeply concerned that this provision could undermine the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth amendment rights of U.S. citizens who might be subjects of detention or prosecution by the military,” states the letter.

Opposition to the bill has been bipartisan. While the letter is signed mostly by Democratic members of Congress, Republican representatives like Justin Amash, Ron Paul, and Rand Paul have also been vocal in their opposition.

After a weekend of secret meetings, the final version of the bill emerged on Tuesday morning and is set to voted on before the end of the week. Issues the Obama administration had with the bill, which had nothing to do with indefinite detention (indeed it was the White House itself which removed language that would have protected Americans from Section 1031), now appear to have been settled.

Both the ACLU and Human Rights Watch point out that the final version does nothing to protect American citizens against indefinite detention.

“The sponsors of the bill monkeyed around with a few minor details, but all of the core dangers remain – the bill authorizes the president to order the military to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others found far from any battlefield, even in the United States itself,” said the ACLU’s Chris Anders.

“The latest version of the defense authorization bill does nothing to address the bill’s core problems – legislated indefinite detention without charge and the militarization of law enforcement,” concurred HRW’s Andrea Prasow.

Proponent of the legislation Senator Lindsay Graham ironically summed up the nightmare scenario the bill will codify into law – the complete evisceration of all Constitutional protections for U.S. citizens.

“It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next,” remarked Graham. “And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.’”

Of course, the government would not be required to present any evidence whatsoever or go through any legal process to snatch an American citizen off the street and send them to Guantanamo Bay, merely accusing them of aiding terrorists or ‘committing an act of belligerence’ would be enough.

Protests and funeral marches to mark the death of freedom in America and the legalization of permanent martial law, are being planned for Thursday, which ironically is Bill of Rights Day, 220 years since the liberties now about to be eviscerated were first ratified on December 15, 1791.


4 responses to “40 Members Of Congress Protest ‘Indefinite Detention’ Bill

  1. osuredleg


    Great job covering important news, as always. Just a couple of points about this letter that was written to the Chairs of the Joint House-Senate Armed Services Committee. First of all, I am glad that at least someone put this in writing. However, I am totally disheartened that it was only 40 member of Congress, which is less than 1/10 of their membership. And if I was paying attention, it seemed that most of the signatories were Democrats. So, did I miss something here? Why was this not a bipartisan letter sent to the Committee? Of course that is a rhetorical question, but I was looking for the names Ron Paul and Rand Paul but no such luck. So, where is the Republican letter, or is it forthcoming? Does anyone have a good answer for this?

    One thing that had be laughing almost uncontrollably was the fact that Alcee Hastings signed this letter. That would be the Democratic Representative from Florida that sponsored H.R. 645 back in 2009. Quoting from WND, February 1, 2009: “H.R. 645, calling for the secretary of homeland security to establish no fewer than six national emergency centers for corralling civilians on military installations…The bill also appears to expand the president’s emergency power, much as the executive order signed by President Bush on May 9, 2007, that, as WND reported, gave the president the authority to declare an emergency and take over the direction of all federal, state, local, territorial and tribal governments without even consulting Congress.” So, he pushes for establishment of these “camps” almost three years ago, but now all of a sudden he decides that it isn’t okay for Congress to actually have the power to put US citizens into these camps? Tell me he had a change of heart”, but I don’t really buy that.

    My last comment has to do with the actual Senate bill number for the NDAA: S. 1867. When i first read about this bill a few weeks ago, someting inside me told me that there was some sort of significance to this. At first I believed it had to do with one of the Constitutionla Amendments passed right after the end of the Civil War in 1865 (14th Amendment came to mind). However, a bit of quick research reminded me of the Reconstruction Acts of 1867-1868. Here is a quick summary of what those acts required: Acts, Bills, and Laws, Post-Civil War
    Nearly two years following the end of the Civil War, Congress finally forged a complete plan for reconstruction. Three measures were passed in 1867 as well as additional legislation the following year. The measures’ main points included:
    – Creation of five military districts in the seceded states (not including Tennessee, which had ratified the 14th Amendment and was readmitted to the Union)
    – Each district was to be headed by a military official empowered to appoint and remove state officials
    – Voters were to be registered; all freedmen were to be included as well as those white men who took an extended loyalty oath
    – State constitutional conventions, comprising elected delegates, were to draft new governing documents providing for black male suffrage
    – States were required to ratify the 14th Amendment prior to readmission.

    The first three bullet points (and especially the first) are the ones that struck me as being very similar to what is happening realtime here in the USA. As you know, Alex Jones/Infowars.com recently posted an official RFQ notice from KBR that they received from a state official (from KY I believe). This RFQ included a map that showed FIVE regions of the USA where detention facilities would be operated. This is in contrast to the DHS-FEMA ten-district model that has been used for decades, of which I am well aware of having done contract work for them.

    Is it just an interesting coincidence that this RFQ came out concurrent with S. 1867, and the bill number just happens to coincide with the year the Reconstruction Acts were passed, which was when the “rebel” states (i.e., the ones that actually fought the Federal Leviathan to be able to follow the Constitution and uphold the 10th Amendment) were made to “submit” to Federal control? Well, I have never believed in coincidences, and from what I know of you SIXX I’m pretty sure that you don’t either. I’m pretty sure they used that number as a sign, just like the Illuminati elite Luciferians have done for hundreds of years. They are TELLING us what is about to happen, and I sure hope that enough of us are paying attention and have enough discernment to decipher their messages, so that we are prepared to meet them on the battlefield in the very near future. This I fear is where things are headed very soon, and the Bible that I have read seems to only bolster my beliefs. May God bless the Remnant!


  2. Billsocal

    Sen Graham true colors finally come out. I don’t think the voers in South Carolina are going to re-elect him.

  3. Hi There Colonel6,
    Thanks for the above, They pledged to only support bills that were authorized explicitly in the Constitution, and to cite the specific part of the Constitution that authorized their bill. In creating the super congress bill they not only refused to cite the authorizing part of the Constitution, but included a requirement for an attempt to pass a Constitutional amendment for a balanced. budget, an explicit admission that they are not acting in a way specifically called for in the Constitution.

    Also, the creation of a new congress which is not representative of the entire nation is clearly against the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution already has specific requirements for passing budgetary items which are designed to allow for members representing the entire nation to be included. A new Congress is unconstitutional.

    The Tea Party has been silent aside from a few people I have seen writing articles saying how Obama is a nazi. Is it possible the Tea Party is nothing buy hypocrites?
    BTW great blogpost

    • you are right on all points. there have been too many things done that the congress simply ignores the constitution. the “super committee is the most insulting to me so far. i can see you are really up on your history and civics.

      i really don’t know anything about the Tea Party. however, i know that the 2010 election showed the tea party has pull. i like them because they can’t be counted but they can turn an election upside down. hypocrites? no.

      Though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.
      -Sun Tzu, the Art of War

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s