Google Translate
|
|
|
NDAA - National Defense Authorization Act - Martial Law
There are many concerns with this bill that Obama signed on December 31, 2012. In a nut shell, it allows the government to arrest and detain US citizens, deny representation by an attorney and detain American citizens indefinitely without bringing charges against the individual.
The bill also allows for US government troops to be deployed in the US and arrest American Citizens. There is also a lot of talk about the FEMA Camps that are being built throughout the USA.
Obama Justifies FEMA imprisonment of civilians!
Ron Paul speaks against the NDAA Bill on the house floor, January 2012.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 was signed into United States law on December 31, 2011, by President Barack Obama.
The Act authorizes $662 billionin funding, among other things "for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad." In a signing statement, President Obama described the Act as addressing national security programs, Department of Defense health care costs, counter-terrorism within the U.S. and abroad, and military modernization.The Act also imposes new economic sanctions against Iran (section 1045), commissions reviews of the military capabilities of countries such as Iran, China, and Russia and refocuses the strategic goals of NATO towards energy security.
The most controversial provisions to receive wide attention are contained in Title X, Subtitle D, entitled "Counter-Terrorism." In particular, sub-sections 1021 and 1022, which deal with detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism, have generated controversy as to their legal meaning and their potential implications for abuse of Presidential authority. Although the White House and Senate sponsors maintain that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) already grants presidential authority for indefinite detention, the Act states that Congress "affirms" this authority and makes specific provisions as to the exercise of that authority. The detention provisions of the Act have received critical attention by, among others, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, and some media sources which are concerned about the scope of the President's authority, including contentions that those whom they claim may be held indefinitely could include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, including arrests by members of the Armed Forces.
The bill passed the House 283 to 136.
A federal court enjoined the indefinite detention powers of the NDAA on the grounds of unconstitutionality on May 16, 2012 in response to a lawsuit filed by journalist Chris Hedges,Noam Chomsky, Naomi Wolf and others. US District Judge Katherine B. Forrest ruled the NDAA 2012 likely violates the 1st and 5th Amendments. Issuing a preliminary injunction prevents the US government from enforcing section 1021 of the NDAA's "Homeland Battlefield" provisions pending further order of the court or an amendment to the statute by US Congress.
The Act authorizes $662 billionin funding, among other things "for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad." In a signing statement, President Obama described the Act as addressing national security programs, Department of Defense health care costs, counter-terrorism within the U.S. and abroad, and military modernization.The Act also imposes new economic sanctions against Iran (section 1045), commissions reviews of the military capabilities of countries such as Iran, China, and Russia and refocuses the strategic goals of NATO towards energy security.
The most controversial provisions to receive wide attention are contained in Title X, Subtitle D, entitled "Counter-Terrorism." In particular, sub-sections 1021 and 1022, which deal with detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism, have generated controversy as to their legal meaning and their potential implications for abuse of Presidential authority. Although the White House and Senate sponsors maintain that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) already grants presidential authority for indefinite detention, the Act states that Congress "affirms" this authority and makes specific provisions as to the exercise of that authority. The detention provisions of the Act have received critical attention by, among others, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, and some media sources which are concerned about the scope of the President's authority, including contentions that those whom they claim may be held indefinitely could include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, including arrests by members of the Armed Forces.
The bill passed the House 283 to 136.
A federal court enjoined the indefinite detention powers of the NDAA on the grounds of unconstitutionality on May 16, 2012 in response to a lawsuit filed by journalist Chris Hedges,Noam Chomsky, Naomi Wolf and others. US District Judge Katherine B. Forrest ruled the NDAA 2012 likely violates the 1st and 5th Amendments. Issuing a preliminary injunction prevents the US government from enforcing section 1021 of the NDAA's "Homeland Battlefield" provisions pending further order of the court or an amendment to the statute by US Congress.
US Military is prepared to secure Martial Law in the United States
October 2008 - The plans to implement martial law in America have been taking shape for decades, hidden behind "Continuity of Government" contingency planning. Now, with public outcry over the banker bailout bill at fever pitch, all of the pieces are in place for the U.S. Army to start policing American citizens.