New Bill Would Authorize Indefinite Detention

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:21 am

Read the Military Detention Bill - Blog - OpenCongressThe 2012 Defense Department Authorization bill that the Senate is working on this week contains a provision that would authorize the U.S. military to indefinitely detain, without charge or trial, anyone they consider to be engaged in hostilities against the United States. The provision would not restrict military detentions to people in specific countries or regions of the world and would apply to U.S. citizens living within the United States.

As long as you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about, right?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 9:46 am

Accountable;1377335 wrote: Read the Military Detention Bill - Blog - OpenCongress

As long as you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about, right?

So your military get to decide?

by my count that is against around half your bill of rights, articles 6,7,8,9, and 10.

That can't be right surely?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:06 pm

gmc;1377353 wrote: So your military get to decide?

by my count that is against around half your bill of rights, articles 6,7,8,9, and 10.

That can't be right surely?
That's the truly disgusting part, imo. The rule of law seems to have been universally cast aside as if it's just an inconvenient relic of the past.

And yet people are clamoring to re-elect these yahoos. We get what we deserve ... every time.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:20 pm

Seriously, Acct, are you really surprised? Where else could the tide take us with all the paranoia that's been shoveled out since 9/11?

katsung47 · Post by **katsung47** » Thu Dec 01, 2011 6:17 pm

First they came for the communists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me

and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:32 am

Actually, they presumption of the OP is incorrect:

Everyone gets their tits in a wringer over section 1031, but they seem to ignore Section 1032 which states,

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(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.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:46 am

I should also point out item (e) in section 1031:

(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.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:48 pm

What are you doing allowing the military to arrest people in the first place? Their only function is to wage war at the behest of your government. You don't have the right to arrest other countries nationals without extradition proceedings unless they commit a crime actually in the states but then the civil police would deal with it so why do your military need this?

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 6:24 pm

gmc;1377534 wrote: What are you doing allowing the military to arrest people in the first place? Their only function is to wage war at the behest of your government. You don't have the right to arrest other countries nationals without extradition proceedings unless they commit a crime actually in the states but then the civil police would deal with it so why do your military need this?

The purpose seems to be providing a way for the military to deal with non-military combatants as prisoners of war when there is not really a war. The other option is to just shoot them.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 6:51 pm

LarsMac;1377545 wrote: The purpose seems to be providing a way for the military to deal with non-military combatants as prisoners of war when there is not really a war. The other option is to just shoot them.
Or stop the war until an enemy can be identified.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 8:42 pm

No? Doesn't extend to US citizens? I guess they're just allowed to be assassinated by drones now.

While we're on about the US becoming extreme Fascist, I'd like to state that I expect Canada to quickly surpass in the coming years. Our oil sands have the potential to turn us into the new Saudi Arabia and I highly doubt those who might stake a claim will want to share the wealth while they poison the rest of the world. We're already looking to build more prisons.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:47 am

koan;1377547 wrote: No? Doesn't extend to US citizens? I guess they're just allowed to be assassinated by drones now.

While we're on about the US becoming extreme Fascist, I'd like to state that I expect Canada to quickly surpass in the coming years. Our oil sands have the potential to turn us into the new Saudi Arabia and I highly doubt those who might stake a claim will want to share the wealth while they poison the rest of the world. We're already looking to build more prisons.

That's the thing though, who owns the resources under the earth of a country? In saudi arabia it's the king, in the UK it's the crown through the government. What you can take you can keep you don't have to let the oil companies have all the wealth and do as they like to everybody's else's lives.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Dec 04, 2011 9:28 am

Accountable;1377546 wrote: Or stop the war until an enemy can be identified.

I am all for stopping the stupid war. Bring all the troops home.

Then what?

What do you want to do the next time some idiot decides to park a car bomb in Times Square?

You don't really think that once we pull our troops out of Afghanistan that those guys will stop trying to **** with us, do you?

After all we have done, we REALLY got 'em riled at us. They will come after us with a vengeance, now.

But that is off topic.

The bill in question still does not destroy the Bill of Rights, and all the hand wringers are saying.

The section on military detention only applies to people not citizens, and not legal residences. It would only apply to people who want to do harm to US citizens and legal residents, or US personnel in other countries. A nation is allowed to defend itself, is it not?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Dec 04, 2011 12:39 pm

LarsMac;1377602 wrote: I am all for stopping the stupid war. Bring all the troops home.

Then what?

What do you want to do the next time some idiot decides to park a car bomb in Times Square?

You don't really think that once we pull our troops out of Afghanistan that those guys will stop trying to **** with us, do you?

After all we have done, we REALLY got 'em riled at us. They will come after us with a vengeance, now.

But that is off topic.

The bill in question still does not destroy the Bill of Rights, and all the hand wringers are saying.

The section on military detention only applies to people not citizens, and not legal residences. It would only apply to people who want to do harm to US citizens and legal residents, or US personnel in other countries. A nation is allowed to defend itself, is it not?

It's a crap way to fight terrorism. The UK, germany, france , Spain, Pakistan, India, Italy even Israel have all faced systematic terrorists attacks without needing to give the military such draconian powers. You have a problem with terrorists not with a nation state attacking you all you're doing is playing right in to their hands, they're not destroying your freedom and liberties you are doing it to yourselves.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:31 pm

LarsMac;1377602 wrote: A nation is allowed to defend itself, is it not?
It is, but not by going into foreign lands and plucking up people suspected of having ties to organizations, or to organizations suspected of having ties with those organizations, and detaining them until somebody decides we don't want to detain them anymore. That is not defense.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:50 pm

I'm sorry but could someone tell me what guantanimo bay is all about then? Everyone is up in arms here a the moment because our prime minister has decided to tax the hell out of all the foreign investors coming into my country and taking all our resources and we get nothing for it . ...... foreign investors are building more and more private prisons in our country ....why? they want to put 2.5 thousand American military in an installation in the Northern territory . Why? apparently it's a desart training facility ...my ****ing arse it is ...just have a look at Pine Gap.

So basically your government has had other countries complain that you've being doing this kind of thing with detention illegally for so long, so now you make it law and the history books will read that you never did it illegally because it's now law .............sigh.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Dec 04, 2011 7:39 pm

With all due respect, y'all need to look to your own governments, here, as well.

We could get away with some of this stuff without support from your politicos.

katsung47 · Post by **katsung47** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 3:05 pm

LarsMac;1377528 wrote: Actually, they presumption of the OP is incorrect:

Everyone gets their tits in a wringer over section 1031, but they seem to ignore Section 1032 which states,

You pick up some words from this section. They would pick up some words from other sections to prove they have the power to detain. It's easy for them to make US a "battle field". Either by extending "fast and Furious" war in Mexico to the US or provocate the Occupy Wall Street movement. That's why they propose this bill.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 5:31 pm

Seems to me damned ambiguous at best. The UK did something similar with Internment during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. It's questionable whether it actually achieved anything positive, and it certainly handed the IRA a propaganda coup.

Bloody scary. What if any rights do these people have when whisked into some black hole. Are their family informed where they are? Can they write? Do they get legal representation? Who decides to kidnap these people? This is very very dangerous. It's as if the USA is reacting to the fear of fear...

The United States of America seems within a whisker of turning into something truly horrible. And no, I don't think they always have been.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:33 am

katsung47;1378798 wrote: You pick up some words from this section. They would pick up some words from other sections to prove they have the power to detain. It's easy for them to make US a "battle field". Either by extending "fast and Furious" war in Mexico to the US or provocate the Occupy Wall Street movement. That's why they propose this bill.

Well, when the bill passes, both sections apply.

Therefore, the military, can, when it is active in a particular area, take the authority to detain people who prove to be hostile to the US for an indefinite period of time. But, it cannot treat Citizens or legal residents of the US in this fashion.

Period.

katsung47 · Post by **katsung47** » Thu Dec 29, 2011 5:56 pm

Rand Paul warns preppers that the government considers you terrorists.

In a warning from Rand Paul on the senate floor, where he speaks out against provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act, we learned today that the government considers having guns or storing more than 7 days of food a possible terrorist activity.

In the speech Rand Paul warns Americans that “Someone who has guns, someone who has ammunition that is weather proofed, someone who has 7 days of food in their house” can be considered a potential terrorist by the federal government.

He warns that under a new provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act the federal government could lock you up indefinitely if you are suspected of activities that they consider terrorism related. That’s right the military will now have the power to lock up anyone, even American citizens without due process and without being convicted of a crime.

Rand Paul warns preppers that the government considers you terrorists.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Dec 30, 2011 11:02 am

katsung47;1379943 wrote: Rand Paul warns preppers that the government considers you terrorists.

In a warning from Rand Paul on the senate floor, where he speaks out against provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act, we learned today that the government considers having guns or storing more than 7 days of food a possible terrorist activity.

In the speech Rand Paul warns Americans that “Someone who has guns, someone who has ammunition that is weather proofed, someone who has 7 days of food in their house” can be considered a potential terrorist by the federal government.

He warns that under a new provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act the federal government could lock you up indefinitely if you are suspected of activities that they consider terrorism related. That’s right the military will now have the power to lock up anyone, even American citizens without due process and without being convicted of a crime.

Rand Paul warns preppers that the government considers you terrorists.

Apparently, he hasn't read the bill, either.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:51 pm

The reason you hold detainees in guantanimo bay is because it is out with the jurisdiction of your civil courts.

posted by larsmac

Well, when the bill passes, both sections apply.

Therefore, the military, can, when it is active in a particular area, take the authority to detain people who prove to be hostile to the US for an indefinite period of time. But, it cannot treat Citizens or legal residents of the US in this fashion.

Period.

To whom do they have to prove guilt or otherwise if they have the right to hold people for an indefinite period of time. To whom does anyone appeal to if arrested by the military? Are they now the supreme court in the land? What happens, hypothetically of course, if your nephew currently in the military witnesses an atrocity and makes it public and he finds himself held without trial on the grounds his actions may be viewed as hostile to the united states, what will you do then. I wonder if this is as a result of the bradley manning case and they are making sure they can shut up anyone spilling the beans. I'm assuming it will apply unreservedly to military personnel.

posted by larsmac

With all due respect, y'all need to look to your own governments, here, as well.

We could get away with some of this stuff without support from your politicos.

You do have a point there but rendition is a contentious issue that has not gone away. I still hope to see Blair brought to trial if only for being a complete, I hate thatcher tony Blair i despise. Mind you the current lot seem to be idiots as well.

Post by **LarsMac** » Fri Dec 30, 2011 5:48 pm

gmc;1380007 wrote: The reason you hold detainees in guantanimo bay is because it is out with the jurisdiction of your civil courts.

posted by larsmac

To whom do they have to prove guilt or otherwise if they have the right to hold people for an indefinite period of time. To whom does anyone appeal to if arrested by the military? Are they now the supreme court in the land? What happens, hypothetically of course, if your nephew currently in the military witnesses an atrocity and makes it public and he finds himself held without trial on the grounds his actions may be viewed as hostile to the united states, what will you do then. I wonder if this is as a result of the bradley manning case and they are making sure they can shut up anyone spilling the beans. I'm assuming it will apply unreservedly to military personnel.

posted by larsmac

You do have a point there but rendition is a contentious issue that has not gone away. I still hope to see Blair brought to trial if only for being a complete, I hate thatcher tony Blair i despise. Mind you the current lot seem to be idiots as well.

The Armed Forces Appropriation bills of the last several years have had the same language in them, and met similar criticism and passed.

And, not a single OWS participant was sent to GITMO.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:14 pm

LarsMac;1380046 wrote: The Armed Forces Appropriation bills of the last several years have had the same language in them, and met similar criticism and passed.

And, not a single OWS participant was sent to GITMO.

Not yet. So if a foreign journalist is making a report critical of the united states does this mean they can be arrested for being hostile? How about if they report an atrocity carried out by US troops - those reporters that first reported in abu grahib? (spelling) were all but accused of treason by some commentators. How about Bradley Manning? Heroic Whistle blower or traitor? Looks like you won't get a chance to find out if his trial is held in secret and without a jury to make the decision.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... sfeed=true

There are also those who continue the longstanding effort to excuse Obama's horrific record on civil liberties by blaming either others or the times. One successful myth is that there is an exception for citizens. The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans' legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens as not just subject to indefinite detention but even to execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:15 am

LarsMac;1378911 wrote: Well, when the bill passes, both sections apply.

Therefore, the military, can, when it is active in a particular area, take the authority to detain people who prove to be hostile to the US for an indefinite period of time. But, it cannot treat Citizens or legal residents of the US in this fashion.

Period.
That's being taken care of. H.R. 3166, Enemy Expatriation Act, is being debated in the House Now.

Enemy Expatriation Act - Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to include engaging in or purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which U.S. nationals would lose their nationality. Defines "hostilities" as any conflict subject to the laws of war.
Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

H.R. 3166 - Summary: Enemy Expatriation Act (GovTrack.us)

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Jan 08, 2012 9:16 am

Full text of the bill:

HR 3166 IH

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3166

To add engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 12, 2011

Mr. DENT (for himself and Mr. ALTMIRE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To add engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Enemy Expatriation Act’.

SEC. 2. LOSS OF NATIONALITY.

(a) In General- Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)--

(A) in each of paragraphs (1) through (6), by striking ‘or’ at the end;

(B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘; or’; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

‘(8) engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

‘(c) For purposes of this section, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war.’.

(b) Technical Amendment- Section 351(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1483(a)) is amended by striking ‘(6) and (7)’ and inserting ‘(6), (7), and (8)’.

katsung47 · Post by **katsung47** » Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:43 pm

LarsMac;1379979 wrote: Apparently, he hasn't read the bill, either.

Try to cheat people?

Quote, "ACLUs statement regarding that section ^^

“Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so. But you don’t have to believe us. Instead, read what one of the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Lindsey Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”

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. (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (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. (c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following: (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)). (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction. (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

Kiss Your Rights Goodbye, America.

katsung47 · Post by **katsung47** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:54 pm

Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention.

Merry Christmas, US Senateby Ralph LopezFollow .

.Sun Dec 25, 2011 at 01:33 PM PST.

UPDATE 12/26/2011:

This is from a statement from Stewart Rhodes of Oathkeepers regarding Republican Denny Rehberg as a target of recall, who also voted for NDAA.

Here in Montana, while we will go after all three violators of the Bill of Rights, I will place special emphasis and "focus of effort" on Denny Rehberg, since he is so fond of wrapping himself in the flag and claiming to be defending the Constitution while his votes do the exact opposite. In that sense, Rehberg is much like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, two Republicans who, right along with Carl Levin and Joseph Lieberman, are leading a sustained and relentless assault on our Bill of Rights.

Moving quickly on Christmas Day after the US Senate voted 86 - 14 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA) which allows for the indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial, Montanans have announced the launch of recall campaigns against Senators Max Baucus and Jonathan Tester, who voted for the bill.

Daily Kos: Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention. Merry Christmas, US Senate

katsung47 · Post by **katsung47** » Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:22 pm

700. National Defense Authorization Act (1/2/2012)

The Gift of New Year 2012 President Obama gives Americans is a new law that ripped their civil right – NDAA.

1. It is a stealth raid on people.

The Act was proposed in later November, quickly passed by the Senate and the House during the Thanksgiving holiday and Christmas season. It was signed by President on New Year’s Day Eve. It was a typical military style - a stealth attack on civil rights taking the advantage when people were relaxing their vigilance in holiday season.

2. So said mainstream media kept a tight mouth on this important issue. Blind the eyes of a lot of people.

3. Majority of law makers and the President passed the Act. It proves the “politicians” don't represent the voice of the people. It also proves the election system has been hijacked by the intelligence already. The so said representatives are not elected by the voters but selected by the rulers of this country.

4. Beware the Feds to turn the US into a “battle field” so they could eliminate the dissenters. It’s easy for them to do so – just plant a few provocateurs in Occupy Wall Street Movement.

5. War on Iran is their major goal. With great possibility, there will be false flag nuclear attacks on US cities to justify the Iran war. Most people realize the truth of the 911 attack. This law is created to deal with the people who won’t believe this government anymore when such “terror attack” happens again.

katsung47 · Post by **katsung47** » Sun Feb 19, 2012 6:36 pm

Washington Republicans want to repeal NDAA

By The Stranger February 3, 2012

Reps. Jason Overstreet, Matt Shea, Vincent Buys, Cary Condotta and David Taylor, all Republicans, have introduced HB 2759, or the Washington State Preservation of Liberty Act. With the bill, the lawmakers aim to tackle the NDAA provisions that make American citizens on par with al-Qaeda terrorists in terms of making anyone in the US eligible for stay at the Guantanamo Bay military prison.

» Washington Republicans want to repeal NDAA Mutiny Radio

katsung47 · Post by **katsung47** » Sun Mar 04, 2012 3:51 pm

NDAA Nullification Passes Virginia Senate by a Veto-Proof 39-1 Vote

Posted by Michael Boldin

Today, the Virginia Senate took a firm stand in support of liberty, the Constitution for the United States, and the Constitution of Virginia by voting in favor of House Bill 1160 (HB1160), the “NDAA Nullification Act.”

The final vote was 39-1.

After a motion to recommit (delay until next year) went down to the wire before being rejected yesterday (report here), groups across the political spectrum activated in support of the legislation, which codifies in law that no agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia – including defense forces and national guard troops, will comply with or assist the federal government in any way under it’s newly claimed powers to arrest and detain without due process.

NDAA Nullification Passes Virginia Senate by a Veto-Proof 39-1 Vote – Tenth Amendment Center

katsung47 · Post by **katsung47** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:57 pm

Ron Paul Demands Repeal of NDAA in Post-Primary Speech

Posted by clnews Thursday, February 2nd, 2012

Ron Paul Demands Repeal of NDAA in Post-Primary Speech | Conscious Life News

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:21 pm

katsung47;1383721 wrote: 700. National Defense Authorization Act (1/2/2012)

The Gift of New Year 2012 President Obama gives Americans is a new law that ripped their civil right – NDAA.

1. It is a stealth raid on people.

The Act was proposed in later November, quickly passed by the Senate and the House during the Thanksgiving holiday and Christmas season. It was signed by President on New Year’s Day Eve. It was a typical military style - a stealth attack on civil rights taking the advantage when people were relaxing their vigilance in holiday season.

2. So said mainstream media kept a tight mouth on this important issue. Blind the eyes of a lot of people.

3. Majority of law makers and the President passed the Act. It proves the “politicians” don't represent the voice of the people. It also proves the election system has been hijacked by the intelligence already. The so said representatives are not elected by the voters but selected by the rulers of this country.

4. Beware the Feds to turn the US into a “battle field” so they could eliminate the dissenters. It’s easy for them to do so – just plant a few provocateurs in Occupy Wall Street Movement.

5. War on Iran is their major goal. With great possibility, there will be false flag nuclear attacks on US cities to justify the Iran war. Most people realize the truth of the 911 attack. This law is created to deal with the people who won’t believe this government anymore when such “terror attack” happens again.

I agree with that . I'm afraid for you guys. you are eventually going to turn on each other and implode and you won't be able to blame Alquada for that .

katsung47 · Post by **katsung47** » Sat Apr 07, 2012 3:33 pm

This roused a question for me. Why the Federal government lawmakers passed the NDAA in large proportion? The Act is obvious violation to the Constitution that the media even dare not to discuss it.

Several days after 911, there was an anthrax attack targetted on Senators that forced the passing through of Patriot Act. In October 2002, there was a Washington DC sniper spree which intimidate the lawmakers to pass the bill of Armed force Authorization in Iraq. (for war on Iraq). It's ten years since then. Our congress and Senato now has been trained to tamed sheeples under the whips of Pentagon and FBI?