Newsbulletin / Boletín de Noticias

No. 1602

Español / English

03 – 01 – 2012



Español:

English:


Español



El desempate de Obama


04-01-2012

Juan Gelman

Página 12



Barack Obama acaba de superar a W. Bush: no cerró Guantánamo, inaugurado por su antecesor; amplió a Pakistán las guerras en Irak y Afganistán y su política económica y social no cambió la dirección que le imprimiera W. Pero pocos días después de cumplirse, el 15 de diciembre, el 220º aniversario de la Carta de Derechos que los Padres Fundadores de EE.UU. erigieron en modelo democrático, Obama promulgó una ley que recorta las libertades civiles más, pero mucho más que la Patriot Act de su predecesor. La National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), aprobada por el Congreso, faculta a las fuerzas armadas a encarcelar por tiempo indeterminado, sin cargos ni proceso y en prisiones militares, a todo estadounidense sospechado de terrorista, aunque viva en el extranjero. Adiós al derecho de defensa y a un juicio civil, adiós a la presunción de inocencia del acusado hasta que su culpabilidad se pruebe.

Son conocidas las torturas y humillaciones propinadas a los presos en Guantánamo y aún padecen, los que quedan, exactamente la misma situación. Este hecho despertó protestas débiles en EE.UU., finalmente se trataba de extranjeros. La amenaza de que los estadounidenses mismos se vean sometidos a semejante trato provocó las reacciones más inesperadas, aun antes de que Obama diera su plácet al engendro. El New York Times publicó una columna de opinión de los generales (R) Charles C. Krulak y Joseph P. Hoar, del cuerpo de marines, nada avara en adjetivos (www.nytimes.com, 12–12–11).

(La NDAA) “es equivocada e innecesaria: el presidente ya cuenta con el poder y la flexibilidad que requiere una lucha efectiva contra el terrorismo... las leyes en vigor facultan a los militares a detener a los capturados en el campo de batalla, pero esta disposición extendería el campo de batalla a EE.UU.”. Agregan que la disposición no sólo viola el espíritu de la legislación que limita el uso de las fuerzas armadas en cuestiones de seguridad interna, “sino también nuestra confianza en el personal de servicio, que se alistó pensando que nunca se le pediría que volviera sus armas contra nuestros compatriotas”. Subrayan que la medida “reduce, si no elimina, el papel de las cortes federales en los casos de terrorismo... desde el 11/9, las inciertas e inexpertas comisiones militares condenaron solamente a seis acusados de terrorismo, mientras que los tribunales civiles sentenciaron a más de 400”. Una consideración muy práctica.

Forbes distrajo un poco de su permanente atención a los multimillonarios para titular así una de sus columnas: “La NDAA es la amenaza más grande a las libertades civiles que los estadounidenses enfrentan” (www.for bes.com, 5-12-11). “Y qué hay de la inocencia hasta que la culpabilidad se pruebe. Y qué hay de un gobierno con límites. Estamos afrontando el acabóse. O mantenemos las libertades intrínsecas de nuestra república constitucional o rompemos ese proyecto entero en nombre de la seguridad librando sin término esa infructuosa, cara y en última instancia contraproducente Guerra contra el Terror.”

Al parecer, juicios tan duros hicieron vacilar a la Casa Blanca y varios asesores sugirieron la posibilidad de que la ley fuera vetada. Pero Obama, citando vagos cambios introducidos en el texto, pegó la vuelta en U y descartó el veto incurriendo en lo que un editorial del New York Times calificó de “una rendición política completa, que refuerza la impresión de una presidencia que se mueve a tropezones” (www.nytimes.com, 15-12-11). A saber si fue realmente así.

El patrón de la Casa Blanca agitó el fantasma del veto “pero no porque tuviera alguna objeción a la sustancia de la ley –señaló el Christian Science Monitor–. En realidad el presidente, que es un ex profesor de derecho constitucional, quería retener la facultad de aplicar sus disposiciones, es decir, el encarcelamiento militar por tiempo indeterminado, a los ciudadanos estadounidenses que, en virtud de la Constitución, tienen derecho a un juicio expeditivo y público y a la protección jurídica debida. El Congreso capituló” (www.csmonitor.com, 28–12-11). No fue Obama el que izó bandera blanca.

El profesor de derecho Jonathan Turley, de la Universidad George Washington, trazó el historial de las violaciones de los derecho civiles y humanos cometidas por el gobierno Obama, desde el permiso para usar ese tormento llamado “submarino” hasta el bloqueo de la investigación y procesamiento de torturadores del ejército y la CIA (www.latimes.com, 29–11-11). “Con el tiempo, la elección de Barack Obama podrá considerarse como uno de los sucesos más devastadores en nuestra historia de las libertades civiles”, concluye Turley.

La Carta de Derechos, primera enmienda de la Constitución de EE.UU., aprobada en 1791, garantiza, entre otras, la libertad de expresión y de reunión, el derecho, entre otros, a no ser sometido a torturas y a un juicio rápido con un jurado imparcial. Pareciera que el ex profesor de derecho constitucional olvidó todo lo que sabía.

Fuente original: http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/contratapa/13-184657-2012-01-03.html

http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=142379


Argentina: Crece el escándalo que involucra a farmacéutica británica Glaxo por la muerte de 14 bebés

Miércoles, 04 de Enero de 2012 00:04

Agencias

El abogado de dos familias damnificadas oriundas de la provincia argentina de Santiago del Estero, Bernardo José Herrera, apuntó a los médicos, enfermeros y asistentes sociales que participaron en las pruebas. "Cobraban por cada uno que vacunaban". El segundo laboratorio del mundo recibió una multa de la ANMAT, que ratificó la Justicia

La empresa farmacéutica Glaxo fue denunciada por una decena de familias por haber cometido irregularidades para conseguir el consentimiento de los padres de al menos 14 bebés que fallecieron tras haber sido sometidos a la prueba de una vacuna experimental.

 

Bernardo José Herrera, abogado de las dos familias relató detalles del ilícito que involucra al laboratorio británico Glaxo: "Esta empresa  se dedicaba de una forma comercial a vacunar a los menores. Los responsables del proyecto cobraban por cada aplicación a los bebés. Era una red que llevaba a cabo todo este mecanismo", explicó.

"En este procedimiento intervinieron médicos, enfermeros y asistentes sociales, quienes estaban pendientes y a la pesca de todos los bebés que nacían en hospitales públicos. Engañaban a los padres y se llevaban a los chicos diciéndoles que había que ponerles una vacuna, pero no les avisaban en qué consistía esa vacuna", señaló .

Una de las damnificadas fue la familia Medina, cuyo caso lleva a cabo el abogado.Herrera relató que la medicación le fue colocada al niño en un momento en que padecía neumonía, lo que provocó graves complicaciones en su salud.

Pero es posible que haya más personas afectadas por las pruebas del laboratorio. Para el abogado de la familia, "hay casos de bebés que murieron por la aplicación de la vacuna y no fueron denunciados".

http://www.matrizur.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17523:crece-el-escandalo-que-involucra-a-glaxo-por-la-muerte-de-14-bebes-&catid=52:contra-las-transnacionales-por-la-soberania-&Itemid=73


Enfrentamiento sangriento en Trípoli. "Esto parece el inicio de una guerra civil"

Martes, 03 de Enero de 2012 21:49

rt.com

El centro de la capital libia, Trípoli, ha sido hoy escenario de enfrentamientos armados entre ex revolucionarios anti Gaddafi procedentes de la ciudad de Misrata y las nuevas Fuerzas Armadas del país, dependientes del consejo militar de la capital. Los choques dejaron un saldo de, al menos, seis muertos y 18 heridos.

"Tuvo lugar un enfrentamiento sangriento. Esto parece el inicio de una guerra civil", comentó uno de los miembros del Consejo militar de Misrata, Mohammad al Grissa.


La escalada de violencia se desató cuando los ex revolucionarios de Misrata quisieron irrumpir en el antiguo edificio del Ministerio del Interior libio, donde permanecía detenido un compañero suyo acusado de un robo. Su intento de liberarlo desembocó en un intenso tiroteo. Entre los habitantes del centro de Trípoli cundió el pánico debido a los disparos de armas automáticas y de ametralladoras de grueso calibre que podían escucharse en un radio de varios cientos de metros.

Según el presidente de la Alta Comisión libia para la Seguridad, el coronel Mustafa Nuh, las fuerzas de esa institución han tomado posiciones en la zona de los enfrentamientos. Decenas de hombres armados han acordonado al menos dos grandes arterias de Trípoli situadas no lejos de esa zona. Nuh detalla que se ha abierto una investigación para determinar las causas exactas y las responsabilidades de lo sucedido.

No es el primer caso de enfrentamientos violentos en el país entre los diferentes grupos de ex revolucionarios. "Durante los meses que transcurrieron desde la liberación de Trípoli vemos armas y oímos disparos por todos lados", comenta Ibrahim Jimani, residente de la capital.

Después de que los insurgentes libios y la OTAN lograran derrocar al régimen del coronel Muammar Gaddafi y asesinarlo, no queda enemigo al que enfrentarse en Libia. Sin embargo las tropas, sin oficio militar en su mayoría, se resisten a deponer las armas. "Actualmente el rebelde y su arma son uno. Va a ser muy difícil desarmar a nuestra gente", advierte el jefe del Consejo Revolucionario de Trípoli, Abdullah Naker.

Todavía sin una figura política que centralice el poder y un Ejército nacional organizado, Libia se ha convertido en un rompecabezas de guerrillas con intereses muy diversos. La guerrilla de Misrata, por ejemplo, fue la más asediada y golpeada por el Ejército de Gaddafi y ahora busca algo más que el reconocimiento a su resistencia. Por su parte, los insurgentes de Bengasi aseguran que su lucha fue la chispa que generó la revolución y demandan más protagonismo. Y como ellos, un número indeterminado de milicias que, junto con las tribus, buscan más influencia en el poder.

http://www.matrizur.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17519:enfrentamiento-sangriento-en-tripoli-qesto-parece-el-inicio-de-una-guerra-civilq&catid=44:imperio&Itemid=62


Obama firmó Ley que incluye sanciones contra bancos que negocien con Irán

Sábado, 31 de Diciembre de 2011 20:15

AVN

El presidente de Estados Unidos, Barack Obama, firmó este sábado una Ley de financiamiento, aprobada por el Congreso de ese país, que incluye nuevas sanciones contra entidades financieras que negocien con el Banco Central de Irán.

La legislación prevé además la financiación por 662 millones de dólares para el Departamento de Defensa (incluye Pentagóno y guerra con Afganistán), en 2012, reseña Reuters.


Con esta legislación, las compañías extranjeras deberán elegir entre hacer negocios con el banco central y el sector financiero y petrolero de Irán o con Estados Unidos.

Además, las instituciones sancionadas podrían ser excluidas de mercados estadounidenses financieros.

El proyecto de ley, aprobado por el Congreso la semana pasada, persigue con sus sanciones a Irán reducir los ingresos petroleros de Teherán para castigar a la República Islámica por su programa nuclear pacífico.

http://www.matrizur.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17444:-obama-firmo-ley-que-incluye-sanciones-contra-bancos-que-negocien-con-iran-&catid=44:imperio&Itemid=62


EEUU califica de "horrendas" las declaraciones de Chávez sobre el cáncer

Jueves, 29 de Diciembre de 2011 22:35

EFE

Estados Unidos consideró hoy "horrendos y reprensibles" los comentarios del presidente de Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, sobre los casos de cáncer de varios gobernantes de América Latina.

La portavoz del Departamento de Estado, Victoria Nuland, respondió así a una pregunta en su rueda de prensa diaria sobre unas declaraciones hechas por Chávez el miércoles al referirse al cáncer diagnosticado esta semana a la presidenta argentina, Cristina Fernández, y al hecho de que haya otros mandatarios, como él mismo, que se han visto afectados por esa enfermedad.

 

Nuland no dijo nada más al respecto de las sospechas formuladas por Chávez, que si bien no mencionó a EE.UU. directamente en lo relativo al cáncer sí habló en las mismas declaraciones en Caracas de los experimentos estadounidenses con campesinos guatemaltecos a los que se les inoculó la sífilis en los años 40.

"Al menos es extraño, muy, muy, muy extraño", dijo Chávez sobre la abundancia de recientes diagnósticos de cáncer entre presidentes latinoamericanos.

Además de Fernández y Chávez, a la hoy presidenta de Brasil, Dilma Rousseff, se le diagnosticó un cáncer linfático en 2009, cuando aún no estaba en el poder, y por el mismo tipo de cáncer tuvo que ser tratado en 2010 el presidente paraguayo, Fernando Lugo.

El pasado noviembre, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, que antecedió a Rousseff en la presidencia de Brasil, dio a conocer que padece un cáncer de laringe y actualmente está en tratamiento.

Aunque advirtió de que no quería hacer acusaciones "temerarias", Chávez se preguntó: "¿Sería extraño que hubieran desarrollado una tecnología para inducir el cáncer y nadie lo sepa hasta ahora y se descubra esto dentro de 50 años o no sé cuántos?".

http://www.matrizur.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17382:eeuu-califica-de-qhorrendasq-las-declaraciones-de-chavez-sobre-el-cancer&catid=44:imperio&Itemid=62


English


Venezuela's Chavez: Did U.S. Give Latin American Leaders Cancer?

Uploaded by TheAlexJonesChannel on Dec 30, 2011

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez speculated on Wednesday that the United States might have developed a way to give Latin American leaders cancer, after Argentina's Cristina Fernandez joined the list of presidents diagnosed with the disease.

It was a typically controversial statement by Venezuela's socialist leader, who underwent surgery in June to remove a tumor from his pelvis. But he stressed that he was not making any accusations, just thinking aloud.

"It would not be strange if they had developed the technology to induce cancer and nobody knew about it until now ... I don't know. I'm just reflecting," he said in a televised speech to troops at a military base.

http://www.infowars.com/venezuelas-chavez-did-u-s-give-latin-american-leaders...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbMwOneGpig&feature=player_embedded


Happy New Year: Obama Signs NDAA, Indefinite Detention Now Law of the Land

President signs authorization to indefinitely detain, torture and deny trial to Americans; grants power to all future presidents.

Aaron Dykes & Alex Jones
PrisonPlanet.com
January 1, 2012

Indeed it is a new day. Ushering in the New Year, President Obama signed legislation that helps to further destroy the principles the nation was founded upon.

President Obama, who pledged to veto the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), has now signed it. Of course, his promise was only for public consumption. After all, lying to your enemy is what invading corporate takeover armies do. It was the Obama administration all along that demanded the indefinite detention provisions be added while at the same time telling the American people he was fighting to protect their rights. This is treason on parade, in your face all out despotism– that is, for those paying any attention!

As the Associated Press reports, the President signed the bill on Saturday “despite having ‘serious reservations’ about provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”

However, those reservations have nothing to do with the rights of the people under the Constitution and Bill of Rights that he swore to protect– rather, his reservations dealt with changes that “challenged the president’s terrorism-fighting ability.” He reportedly accepted the legislation only after such impedance was removed.

Instead, it was a deceptive maneuver to appear wary of such powers when the White House demanded it all along. In fact, Obama’s veto threat was always about that issue– the language over Section 1022 and NOT the authorization for the indefinite detention of Americans in Section 1021. Rather, it was a debate over “requiring” military protocol on detention rather than leaving the discretion over whether to detain to the executive branch, under the power of the Presidency.

Yesterday, with a friendly note, Obama issued a signing statement that read:

Moving forward, my administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.”

Despite positioning himself in the signing statement as cautious towards the rights of the individuals in the nation, the President has just signed into law a provision that threatens the right of every American to due process, and a public trial with a jury. Instead, he has handed over grotesque authority to himself and EVERY President that comes after him, whatever their intentions might be.

Obama’s signing statement later states:

Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation.

Even if Obama’s stated intention here is true, it is no guarantee of the attitudes and interpretations of future presidents, or of the intent of their power advisors, many of whom operate the national security shadow network. Instead, it is yet another Constitution-destroying, power-grabbing so-called law.

The ACLU, too, warns about this deception:

President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law today. The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision. While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use the authorities granted by the NDAA, and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations.
[...] ACLU executive director Anthony D. Romero stated: “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.”

Obviously, this is a dangerous precedent and a dark day for America.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/happy-new-year-obama-signs-ndaa-indefinite-detention-now-law-of-the-land.html


President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law

December 31, 2011

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON – President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law today. The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision.  While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use the authorities granted by the NDAA, and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations.  The White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA, but reversed course shortly before Congress voted on the final bill.

“President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.  The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.”

Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again. The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA. In addition, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.

“We are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention authority in court,” said Romero. “Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today. Thankfully, we have three branches of government, and the final word belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority. But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAA’s detention authority.”

The bill also contains provisions making it difficult to transfer suspects out of military detention, which prompted FBI Director Robert Mueller to testify that it could jeopardize criminal investigations.  It also restricts the transfers of cleared detainees from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to foreign countries for resettlement or repatriation, making it more difficult to close Guantanamo, as President Obama pledged to do in one of his first acts in office.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-bill-law


Myth busted: Yes, the NDAA does apply to Americans, and here's the text that says so

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) In the aftermath of the signing of the NDAA by the traitorous President Obama, some citizens remain completely hoodwinked by the language of the bill, running around the internet screaming that the law "does not apply to American citizens."

This is, naturally, part of the side effect of having such a dumbed-down education system where people can't even parse the English language anymore. If you read the bill and
understand what it says, it clearly offers absolutely no protections of U.S. citizens. In fact, it affirms that Americans are subjected to indefinite detainment under "existing authorities."

Let's parse it intelligently, shall we?

First off, the offending section of the bill that used to be called 1031 was moved to 1021. Here is the title:

(http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-...)

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

The two relevant sections to consider are titled and stated as follows;

(d) CONSTRUCTION. -- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

By PARSING the language here, we must split it into two sentences based on the "or" operator. This statement essentially means:

• Nothing in this section is intended to LIMIT the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

• Nothing in this section is intended to EXPAND the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

In other words, this section places no limits whatsoever of the "authority of the President" to use military force (against American citizens). Keep that in mind as you read the next section:

(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.

This section "e" is the section that the hoodwinked people on the internet are running around saying "protects American citizens" from the NDAA. But where do they dream up such language? If you read section (e) again, you'll discover it says nothing whatsoever about protecting American citizens from the NDAA. Instead, here's what it really says when parsed into two sentences based on the "or" operator:

Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing LAW 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.

• Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing 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.


In other words, section (e) only says that it does not
alter "existing authorities" relating to the detention of US citizens.

So to answer the question about whether this affects U.S. citizens, you have to understand "existing authorities."

What are those "existing authorities?"

Existing authorities already allow indefinite detainment and the killing of American citizens

As everyone who studies history well knows, the Patriot Act already establishes an "existing authority" that anyone suspected of being involved in terrorist-related activities can be arrested and detained without trial. If you don't believe me, just Google it yourself. This is not a debated issue; it's widely recognized.

Furthermore, President Obama already insists that he has the authority
to kill American citizens merely by decree! As Reuters reported on October 5, 2011, a "secret panel" of government officials (who report to the President) can decide to place an American citizen on a "kill list" and then murder that person, without trial, without due process, and without even being arrested. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011...)

Importantly, as Reuters reports, "Two principal legal theories were advanced [in support of the kill list authority] -- first, that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001."

Are you getting this yet? So
the authority ALREADY exists for the President to order the killing of an American citizen. All that is required is that they be suspected of being involved in terrorism in any way, and not a shred of evidence is required by the government to support that. There is no trial, no arraignment, no evidence and not even a hearing. You are simply accused and then disappeared.

Thus, the authority already exists, you see, and the NDAA openly states that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing AUTHORITIES..."

In other words, the NDAA does nothing to protect American citizens, and it piggy-backs on the Patriot Act as well as Obama's executive "kill list" justifications to essentially place all Americans in the crosshairs of government murderers or military action.

Rep. Justin Amash, a Congressman from Michigan, explains:

The key to subsection 1021(e) is its claim that sec. 1021 does not "affect existing law or authorities" relating to the detention of persons arrested on U.S. soil. If the President's expansive view of his own power were in statute, that statement would be true. Instead, the section codifies the President's view as if it had always existed, authorizing detention of "persons" regardless of citizenship or where they are arrested. It then disingenuously says the bill doesn't change that view. (http://www.facebook.com/note.php?no...)

Follow more from Rep. Justin Amash at Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash

Storing food could get you labeled as a terror suspect

So then, you might be wondering, "What kinds of activities could get me accused of being involved in supporting terrorism?"

And here's the kicker, because all the following activities could cause you to be arrested, detained, interrogated and even murdered all under U.S. law, thanks to Obama:

• Criticizing the federal government.
• Using cash to purchase things.
• Storing food and medical supplies.
• Owning a firearm and storing ammunition.
• Standing still and minding your own business near a government building.
• Writing something down on a piece of paper near a government building.
• Using a pair of binoculars.
• Protesting for animal rights in front of a medical lab.
• Protesting your government (or Wall Street).
• Requesting to take more than a couple thousand dollars out of your bank account in cash.

You see, under existing authority, you could be labeled a "terror suspect" for engaging in any of these activities, and then LEGALLY arrested, detained, interrogated or even killed by the U.S. government, all under Obama's authority (or whatever next President takes over in Washington and perhaps does far worse things with that power...)

You are already enemy combatants, folks. The NDAA does absolutely nothing to protect you from its provisions. In fact, it openly states that it does not limit existing authorities -- authorities which already claim the right to subject you to indefinite military detention merely for being "suspected" of involvement with "terrorism," which could be interpreted to apply in practically any situation.

Reading between the lines

Get this through your heads, folks: to properly understand the NDAA (or any other bill), you have to learn to think like lawyers and tyrants.

They don't just put language right out in plain view that says, "Americans may never be arrested or detained without due process." Instead, they create a web of legalese statements that are cross-referenced, paraphrased and specifically engineered to obfuscate their intended purpose. This is designed to hide their true intentions, not to make them clear.

Furthermore, if the bill actually intended to protect Americans from the NDAA, then it should have contained language saying something like, "American citizens are specifically excluded from all the provisions of this bill, in its entirety."

I'll bet anyone a thousand dollars they won't find language like that in the bill. Because it doesn't exist! And the reason it doesn't exist is because the NDAA is clearly intended to apply to American citizens.

The writers of the bill have managed to fool a lot of everyday people who seem unable to parse language and read plain English with any depth of understanding. That is as much a failure of America's public education system as anything else. I find it astonishing that today's citizens can't even read and understand the grammatical structure of sentences written in plain English. This alone is a highly disturbing subject that must be addressed another day. For now, it's enough just to realize that the NDAA really does apply to you, me, and all our neighbors and friends. In signing it, Obama has cemented his place in history as the enabler of government-sponsored mass murder of its own citizens.

History does repeat itself after all, huh? Hitler, Stalin, Mao and now "Obama the enabler." While Obama himself probably won't engage in the mass murder of American citizens, have no illusions that a future President will try to use the powers enacted by Obama to carry out such crimes. Gingrich, anyone?

http://www.naturalnews.com/z034538_NDAA_American_citizens_indefinite_detainment.html


The Truth About the New Detainee Policy in the NDAA

by Justin Amash on Friday, December 16, 2011 at 4:57pm

On Thursday, Congress gave the President sweeping new power to detain American citizens indefinitely, without charge or trial.  A provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) empowers the President to detain anyone who “substantially supported” groups he determines are “associated forces” of terrorists.

 

The provision at issue, sec. 1021, was tucked into an 1800-page conference report that was shuttled through Congress in a matter of days.  Given the complexity and weight of the issue, I was interested to read House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon’s post on RedState explaining the bill’s detention policy.  Unfortunately, the post is almost useless because it muddles two separate provisions of the NDAA.

 

Sec. 1021, the bill’s discretionary detention provision, authorizes the President to detain persons who “substantially supported” forces “associated” with al-Qaeda or the Taliban that “are engaged in hostilities” against the U.S. or its “coalition partners.”  None of the quoted terms are defined.  We do not know what constitutes substantial support, hostilities, or our coalition partners.  Critically, the bill does not attempt to define “associated forces,” either.  Without knowing what qualifies as an associated force, no one can be sure they are safe from the government’s detention.

 

Sec. 1022, the bill’s mandatory detention provision, requires the President to detain members of al-Qaeda who have planned or carried out attacks against the U.S. or its coalition partners.  Only sec. 1022 states that it “does not extend to citizens of the United States.”

 

(You can read the language of both provisions in the conference report.  Sec. 1021 begins on p. 653; sec. 1022 begins on p. 656.)

 

What’s troubling is that Chairman McKeon’s post gives you the impression that it defends sec. 1021—the discretionary detention provision—when, in fact, his post is all about sec. 1022, the mandatory provision.  The post conspicuously defends “the provision,” without referencing a specific section number.  And, at the end, it includes a chart titled “Section 1021 of the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act,” even though one of the two quotes in the chart is from sec. 1022, not 1021.

 

Sec. 1021—the provision I and other constitutional conservatives are most concerned about—is much more difficult to defend.  Its expansive, undefined, and dangerous detention power goes well beyond what Congress authorized in its September 2011 Authorization for Use of Military Force (9/11 AUMF), even though the bill claims it only “affirms” the President’s authority under the 9/11 AUMF.  To understand how much power sec. 1021 gives to the President, consider the 9/11 AUMF’s text, which Congress passed just days after the most deadly attack in U.S. history:

 

[T]he President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

 

The 9/11 AUMF authorizes force only against persons and groups who have a connection to the September 11 terrorist attacks.  The 9/11 AUMF says nothing about detention, let alone the indefinite detention of American citizens.

 

Despite the 9/11 AUMF’s plain language, the past two administrations have argued in court that the 9/11 AUMF authorizes the President to indefinitely detain certain persons the administration determines are enemies.  Both administrations also have claimed the 9/11 AUMF applies to persons and groups that are “associated” with al-Qaeda or the Taliban.  No 9/11 nexus is required, according to the President.

 

Section 1021 thus claims that it merely “affirms” the President’s authority under the 9/11 AUMF, including the alleged authority to detain persons the President determines are “associated forces.”  While the section is framed as an affirmation, it can be viewed as that only if Congress adopted the President’s expansive interpretation of the 9/11 AUMF—an action Congress never had taken before Thursday.  To be clear: When the Senate passed the NDAA conference report on Thursday, for the first time in history, Congress approved the indefinite detention of persons who “substantially supported . . . associated forces.”

 

Who could this cover?  An American citizen living in Michigan makes a one-time donation to a non-violent humanitarian group.  Years later, the group commits hostile acts against an ally of the U.S.  Under the NDAA that just passed Congress, if the President determines the group was “associated” with terrorists, the President is authorized to detain the donor indefinitely, and without charge or trial.

 

NDAA proponents sometimes point to an amendment to sec. 1021, added by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, as proof that the NDAA doesn’t apply to Americans.  The amendment, now subsection 1021(e), states:

 

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.

 

The key to subsection 1021(e) is its claim that sec. 1021 does not “affect existing law or authorities” relating to the detention of persons arrested on U.S. soil.  If the President’s expansive view of his own power were in statute, that statement would be true.  Instead, the section codifies the President’s view as if it had always existed, authorizing detention of “persons” regardless of citizenship or where they are arrested.  It then disingenuously says the bill doesn’t change that view.

 

In fact, the Senate expressly rejected a provision that would have prevented the indefinite detention of American citizens.  Sen. Feinstein offered another amendment to sec. 1021 that stated the section “does not include the authority to detain a citizen of the United States without trial until the end of hostilities.”  That amendment was rejected 45-55.  Sen. Feinstein’s other amendment, which does nothing to protect U.S. citizens, passed 99-1.

 

Our Constitution does not permit the federal government to detain American citizens indefinitely without charge or trial.  I strongly believe in protecting the country’s security and equipping our Armed Forces with the tools they need to defeat our enemies.  But the American people cannot support measures that, in the name of security, violate our constitutional rights.

 

The NDAA’s backers succeeded in part because of the bill’s length and complexity.  And I concede that this issue takes time to understand.  Over the next few months, I hope to join others who value our country’s constitutional rights to block the NDAA’s dangerous detention provision.  Once the American public sees for itself what’s included in the NDAA, I’m confident they will demand we do so.

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=296584837047596


The NDAA's Historic Assault on American Liberty

By signing into law the NDAA, the president has awarded the military extraordinary powers to detain US citizens without trial

Published on Monday, January 2, 2012 by Jonathan Turley's Blog

President Barack Obama rang in the New Year by signing the NDAA law with its provision allowing him to indefinitely detain citizens. It was a symbolic moment, to say the least. With Americans distracted with drinking and celebrating, Obama signed one of the greatest rollbacks of civil liberties in the history of our country … and citizens partied in unwitting bliss into the New Year.

Ironically, in addition to breaking his promise not to sign the law, Obama broke his promise on signing statements and attached a statement that he really does not want to detain citizens indefinitely (see the text of the statement here).

Obama insisted that he signed the bill simply to keep funding for the troops. It was a continuation of the dishonest treatment of the issue by the White House since the law first came to light. As discussed earlier, the White House told citizens that the president would not sign the NDAA because of the provision. That spin ended after sponsor Senator Carl Levin (Democrat, Michigan) went to the floor and disclosed that it was the White House and insisted that there be no exception for citizens in the indefinite detention provision.

The latest claim is even more insulting. You do not "support our troops" by denying the principles for which they are fighting. They are not fighting to consolidate authoritarian powers in the president. The "American way of life" is defined by our constitution and specifically the bill of rights. Moreover, the insistence that you do not intend to use authoritarian powers does not alter the fact that you just signed an authoritarian measure. It is not the use but the right to use such powers that defines authoritarian systems.

The almost complete failure of the mainstream media to cover this issue is shocking. Many reporters have bought into the spin of the Obama administration as they did the spin over torture by the Bush administration. Even today, reporters refuse to call waterboarding torture despite the long line of cases and experts defining waterboarding as torture for decades.

On the NDAA, reporters continue to mouth the claim that this law only codifies what is already the law. That is not true. The administration has fought any challenges to indefinite detention to prevent a true court review. Moreover, most experts agree that such indefinite detention of citizens violates the constitution.

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.

The Obama administration and Democratic members are in full spin mode – using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorisation to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.

Obama could have refused to sign the bill and the Congress would have rushed to fund the troops. Instead, as confirmed by Senator Levin, the White House conducted a misinformation campaign to secure this power while portraying the president as some type of reluctant absolute ruler, or, as Obama maintains, a reluctant president with dictatorial powers.

Most Democratic members joined their Republican colleagues in voting for this un-American measure. Some Montana citizens are moving to force the removal of these members who, they insist, betrayed their oaths of office and their constituents. Most citizens, however, are continuing to treat the matter as a distraction from the holiday cheer.

For civil libertarians, the NDAA is our Mayan moment: 2012 is when the nation embraced authoritarian powers with little more than a pause between rounds of drinks.

© 2012 Jonathan Turley

Jonathan Turley is a professor of law at George Washington University.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/02-7


HOME / INICIO