National Defense Authorization Act Debate In Progress, Vote Imminent

Tyler Durden's picture

Much has been said about the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a bill which, as many are aware, permits the indefinite detention of Americans suspected of terrorist affiliations. As a reminder from the AP, "Congress is pressing ahead with a massive $662 billion defense bill that requires military custody for terrorism suspects linked to al-Qaida, including those captured within the U.S., with lawmakers hoping their last-minute revisions will mollify President Barack Obama and eliminate a veto threat. Leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees announced late Monday that they had reached agreement on the policy-setting legislation that had gotten caught up in an escalating fight on whether to treat suspected terrorists as prisoners of war or criminals in the civilian justice system. Responding to personal appeals from Obama and his national security team, the lawmakers added language on national security waivers and other changes that they hoped would ensure administration support for the overall bill. “I assured the president that we were working on additional assurances, that the concerns were not accurate,” Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., who spoke to Obama last week, told reporters at a news conference. “That we’d do everything we could to make sure they were allayed, and met.” White House officials said Tuesday they were reviewing the bill. It was unclear whether they would hold firm on the veto threat." Unfortunately, the usurpation of America by the Big Brother state (more here) is no surprise to anyone, and this is merely the latest milestone. Regardless, those who wish to watch the moot debate on the topic as our elected individuals sell yet another remaining individual liberty to the corporate octopus, as well as the vote on the act due at 3:30 PM Eastern, can do so here (and read more on it here).

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
TruthInSunshine's picture

If the CONgress doesn't carve out a hard exception for American Citizens on U.S. soil - I'll actually go one step further, radical adherent to a government restrained by a Constitutional Framework form of government asdvocate that I am, and declare U.S. Citizens anywhere who have not been declared 'enemy combatants of the U.S. as declared by a United States Court of Compentent Jurisdiciton (aka Due Process, as once one is deemed an enemy combantant, they've already been tried and convicted), this will be a watershed moment in the literal subversion of the Constitution by the U.S. Government, and the burning of the Sixth Amendment.

dwdollar's picture

"...and the burning of the Sixth Amendment."

May it RIP alongside the Fourth Amendment which has been dead for quite some time now.

TruthInSunshine's picture

Not to mention the Fourteenth Amendment, which I failed to mention specifically above, which is the foundation for RIGHT (Constitutional Rights, as in NOT privileges - such as the issuance and suspension of driver licenses) to Due Process.


Buckaroo Banzai's picture

I think you might be a little confused about the actual wording of the 14th Amendment, and the TRUE intentions behind its language. The 14th Amendment was not created to protect your God-given Rights; rather, it was created to transform God-given rights into government-granted Privileges. Let's check the language. The 14 Amendment begins thusly:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

OK fine. Now look at the next sentence:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."

No mention of rights there. Only "privileges and immunities" are protected. There is a VERY clear legal distinction between the word "Right" and the word "Privilege". Anybody with the vaguest knowledge of legal language knows this. We must conclude that the 14th Amendment was written this way on purpose.

To review: first, create a new status class (citizen) and define which people are in that class . Second, declare that citizens shall enjoy certain privileges that the States cannot abridge. Third (which is implied by the language, or rather, the lack of certain language), annul the God-given rights by leaving those rights unmentioned-- and therefore, unprotected-- to anybody who falls into the "14th Amendment citizen" classification.

Neat trick, eh?

TruthInSunshine's picture

14th Amendment Amendment XIV Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


I suppose that Chief Justice Draconian could construct a majority opinion whereby he/she declares that the federal government can deprive you of all of these things (and more), even though individual states can not, while going on to minimize "due process of law" to the point of meaningless, although I'd then defer back to the Sixth Amendment if I had the privilege of doing so.

Sixth Amendment Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


And here again, Chief Justice Draconian would argue that a) this only is triggered where states, and not the federal government, charge one with a criminal offense (???), b) is moot unless one is charged with a criminal offense officially, despite being detained indefinitely on unspecified or vaguely specified grounds (in which case, screw it; just have government detain but never charge anyone) - but what about HABEUS CORPUS?

I suppose if Habeus Corpus is allowed to be destroyed as a key cornerstone of the constitution as it pertains to matters involving governmental allegations of criminal conduct against the detained, whether official charges have been technically filed or not, then it's pretty much over -

Detainee Policy | Brennan Center for Justice

Al-Marri v. Wright, 487 F. 3d 160 (2007)

Boumediene v. Bush 553 U.S. 723 (2008)


Buckaroo Banzai's picture

The 14th Amendment rendered the Bill of Rights obsolete. There is no longer any class of Americans who qualify for protection under the Bill of Rights-- all are now classified as 14th Amendment Citizens who the Federal Government has granted privileges in place of God-given rights.

As for Due Process of Law, well, secret military tribunals handle that one nicely.

TruthInSunshine's picture

You need to read the two cases I linked.

No snark.


I hate to resort to Wiki, but I do believe its section on this is accurate, and don't have time at this precise moment to find alternate discourse of a summary of these cases (plus Hamden v. Rumsfeld), so here it is:

Boumediene v. Bush


Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), was a writ of habeas corpus submission made in a civilian court of the United States on behalf of Lakhdar Boumediene, a naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, held in military detention by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detention camps in Cuba.[1][2][3] Guantanamo Bay is not formally part of the United States, and under the terms of the 1903 lease between the United States and Cuba, Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory, while the United States exercises complete jurisdiction and control.[4] The case was consolidated with habeas petition Al Odah v. United States and challenged the legality of Boumediene's detention at the United States Naval Station military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as well as the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006. Oral arguments on the combined case were heard by the Supreme Court on December 5, 2007.

On June 12, 2008, Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority holding that the prisoners had a right to the habeas corpus under the United States Constitution and that the MCA was an unconstitutional suspension of that right. The Court applied the Insular Cases, by the fact that the United States, by virtue of its complete jurisdiction and control, maintains "de facto" sovereignty over this territory, while Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory, to hold that the aliens detained as enemy combatants on that territory were entitled to the writ of habeas corpus protected in Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. The lower court expressly indicated that no constitutional rights (not merely the right to habeas) extend to the Guantanamo detainees rejecting petitioners' arguments. This Court's case precedent recognized that fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution extend to Guantanamo.[5][6] Along with Rasul v. Bush, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, this is a major case in the Court's controversial detainee jurisprudence.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

As for those cases you cited, well, according to the way our current legal system "works", the interpretation of the law is certainly a matter of judicial opinion, rendered by "learned judges" who are our betters in these matters, is it not? And yet some judges don't interpret the law the same way as others.

How about this viewpoint instead: the law is exactly what the law is. I don't need a judge to tell me what the 14th Amendment says; it is written in plain language, with words that have clear legal definitions, and I can see exactly what words are there and which ones aren't there.

Go back and read what I wrote-- what is wrong with my logic, or my reading of the text?

My final argument is this. If the 14th Amendment is supposed to protect our Rights, why has it obviously done a lousy job doing so? Look at what has changed since the 14th Amendment was written. We now require Social Security numbers to work; driver's licenses to drive; we can't own a car without State registration papers, we can't opt-out of scams like Social Security, we are subject to involuntary servitude (aka income taxes), we are subjects of the Federal Reserve System, our legal tender is worthless and we have no other recourse for a legal medium of exchange, we are subject to all kinds of restrictions on our freedoms like the TSA, the Patriot Act, etc etc etc.

So, ignoring words, and examining reality, which of us is right?

TruthInSunshine's picture


--- "As for those cases you cited, well, according to the way our current legal system "works", the interpretation of the law is certainly a matter of judicial opinion, rendered by "learned judges" who are our betters in these matters, is it not? And yet some judges don't interpret the law the same way as others."

Those cases that I cited above are not subject to varying opinions of different judges.

They're now the official law of the land, with the issues and questions they've presented, having gone before the Supreme Court of The United States of America, ruled on/decided as outlined, and are now stare decisis whose precedent all courts comprising the U.S. judicial system are bound by.

Can the Supreme Court reverse one of its prior decisions, as is speculated it may do re Miranda? Yes. It can happen, but is rare. Very rare.

But no court other than the Supreme Court can not abide by a SCOTUS ruling, period.

Citxmech's picture

The 14th Amend. prohibits STATES from enacting laws that conflict with due process, etc. - it has nothing to do with laws the Feds. enact.  The issue here is that this law is in direct conflict with the Constitution itself.

pods's picture

To be honest, citizens merely have Civil Rights, and only at the pleasure of their ruling government.  So if they take away some "rights," maybe it will wake up some more people as to what the exact situation is?


TruthInSunshine's picture

As unconstitutional and deeply disturbing as the idefinite internment of Japanese-ancestry AMERICAN CITIZENS on U.S. Soil without the right for judicial review was during WWII, this is that episode on steroids, as, and unless I'm unaware of any major legislative matters regarding this now proposed legislation, it's a literal blank check to do to any American in any numbers what was done to Japanese Americans, for any period of time.

*My grammar is terrible today. Apologies. I should have written Court of Competent Jurisdiction above.


pods's picture

Correct, but many conclude that we are not functioning under the organic constitution anymore anyways.

Trafficant even read it into the record.

That is where my comments are coming from.  

And it is the only thing that puts together the pieces of all the infringements of our rights up until now.  Licensing and rules for guns, permits to peaceably assemble, etc.  If you have to get a permit, it is a privilege.

The 14th amendment created a public trust, and by joining that trust you abide by the rules of the trust.  Most joined at birth, and by using the currency of the trust, you are a party.

That is why you have to contract when entering a court of "law."  If you do not contract to their rules, they cannot try you in their court.



Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Exactly. The 14th Amendment defines a class of people who are granted certain privileges by the Federal Government, which protects the privileges from being abridged by the states.

Unless you specifically opt out of that class of persons, you have traded Privileges for Rights, and are subject to the subsequent law written for that class of persons..

Milestones's picture

Just my two cents. " We the people---do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Note: We the people, are the SOVERIGNS of this nation--The OWNERS of this country. WE founded it, settled it long before any constitution existed.. WE are not 14th Amendment citizens; and as such do not take orders from our employee's. WE OWN THIS COUNTRY AND IT IS ABOUT TIME WE START ACTING LIKE OWNERS RATHER THAN ITS SERF"S!!        Milestones

salthouse's picture

and the Fifth Ammendment ......

Second is on life support

dwdollar's picture

The unemployed are terrorists. Send them to the camps. /sarc

mayhem_korner's picture



Long Get out of Jail Free Cards. 

Check that: long compromising photos and other implements of black mail.  :D

Manthong's picture

Any member that votes for that POS is a POS.

papaswamp's picture

It will pass. Have to have it in place for when the economy collapses...

SheepDog-One's picture

Yep theyre all lawyers, its just how they think. They can imprison, kill, torture, whoever they want as long as they passed a law for it. 

subello's picture

Bro I had a discussion with my girl on this. Every time congress passes legislation I try to figure out the motivation behind it. What I imagine this would be highly effective for is exactly what you said. Economy collapses, bank run happens but people are denied access to their money, people start rioting nationwide, local police will be overwhelmed but the military wont. Personally this looks like a strategic move for something that is coming.

GeneMarchbanks's picture

The Nazification of America continues...

...maybe they'll detain me for suggesting that Corzine needs to be detained.

FubarNation's picture

If these treasonous fucks pass this bill may they all rot in hell.

Edmon Plume's picture

It's either "for the children"(tm), or "for our own good"(tm), right?

My Taint's picture

How many Tylers can they arrest at once?

john39's picture

most posters on this site probably have dossiers somewhere...  ever hear of the hundred flowers campaign?

Dr. Richard Head's picture

I can't waitto read mine after this dust settles.  I think my internet porn viewing habits will even astound myself.

john39's picture

hundred flowers campaign was something that chairman mao came up in the early 1950's...  ask all the intellectuals to produce constructive criticism of the government (let one hundred flowers bloom), then later round them all up for being counter revolutionaries...

TruthInSunshine's picture

I realize that I've been accused of paranoia (I actually haven't, at least not openly or out loud), but does anyone doubt that it's at least a possibility, if not a likelihood, that Google, with all of its 'free services' such as Google Voice, Google Docs, and a variety of 'competitors' to Google, are all U.S. data aggregation services?

Google execs in high ranking places in U.S. Government, and a revolving door of Google (and other tech company) hiring of former U.S. legislators and regulators, bitchez.

Dr. Richard Head's picture

Wouldn't exclude it as a possibility.  Fuck em.

Comay Mierda's picture

google received funding from DARPA.  so did facebook.  im guessing they weren't "charitable donations"

Confused's picture

I think we would be crazy not to assume such behavior.


Paranoia or not. They know everything about its users.

IrritableBowels's picture

google search "illuminati" typed in reverse.


Citxmech's picture

Once any organization achieves that kink of level of direct involvement with the flow of information you know they get a visit from TPTB with an offer they can't refuse.  Google, Facebook, ect. weren't started as means to monitor the population, but they surely became participants whether they wanted to or not.

TruthInSunshine's picture

So you're making the audacious claim that a company like AT&T or Verizon would just hand over data on their tens of millions of users' phone calls, text and surfing queries to the government without so much as a warrant signed by a judge?

You are a conspiracytheoristparanoid!!!!!!!!!!

Just kidding. That already happened.

NotApplicable's picture

If you think that's bad, just wait until you see governments outsourcing their IT infrastructure to Google.

It's already happening.

Cathartes Aura's picture

Google boys are members *cough* of the Bilderberg club, and are fond of "foundations" - can't get much more embedded than that.

s2man's picture

Yeah.  I hang out here, and bought food storage online.  They've got my number.  At least I always pay cash for the a-, nevermind.

I've got to go bury some more stuff...

tmosley's picture

Damn, never heard of that before now.

He who fails to learn from history...

NotApplicable's picture

All they have to do today to replicate Mao's trick is to start a blog, then sit back and watch the posts. :-)

falak pema's picture

all those who assert they are Durdens, like hard gherkins.'s picture

Even the SS didn't make a habit of saying "Ve vant to grope your genitalia."

dick cheneys ghost's picture

America, it was nice to know ya.............

pods's picture

Well, I would like to think that somehow liberty will be defended by our servant government, but I am a realist.

These cocksuckers would never do any such thing though.

Even if this does not pass, there aren't any checks and balances to prevent any of this crap.

It is not like the government has a good track record for obeying codified law anyways.

This is all fodder for the Hannity Sheep to rejoice that the guns will only be turned on the brown people who are sitting on top of our oil.