ConCen

To the corporate fascist military-bank-prison-industrial government whore,
No more, no more of this perpetual war.

Quote:Congress To Vote On Declaration Of World War 3 — An Endless War With No Borders, No Clear Enemies
Wednesday, 18 May 2011 07:54

The United States Congress is set to vote on legislation that authorizes the official start of World War 3.

The legislation authorizes the President of the United States to take unilateral military action against all nations, organizations, and persons, both domestically and abroad, who are alleged to be currently or who have in the past supported or engaged in hostilities or who have provided aid in support of hostilities against the United States or any of its coalition allies.

The legislation removes the requirement of congressional approval for the use of military force and instead gives the President totalitarian dictatorial authority to engage in any and all military actions for an indefinite period of time.

It even gives the President the authority to launch attacks against American Citizens inside the United States with no congressional oversight whatsoever.

Just to recap, because that was a mouthful:

* Endless War – The war will continue until all hostilities are terminated, which will never happen.
* No Borders – The president will have the full authority to launch military strikes against any country, organization or person, including against U.S citizens on U.S soil.
* Unilateral Military Action – Full authority to invade any nation at any time with no congressional approval required.
* No Clearly Defined Enemy – The US can declare or allege anyone a terrorist or allege they are or have been supporting “hostilities” against the US and attack at will.
* Authorization To Invade Several Countries – The president would have full authority to invade Iran, Syria, North Korea, along with several other nations in Africa and the Middle East and even Russia and China under the legislation all of which are “know” to have supported and aided hostilities against the United States.

The Hill writes:

House Dems protest GOP’s plans for permanent war against terror

Nearly three dozen House Democrats are calling on Republicans to withdraw a section of the 2012 defense authorization bill that they say would effectively declare a state of permanent war against unnamed Taliban and al Qaeda operatives.

A Tuesday letter from House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and 32 other Democrats argues that affirming continued war against terrorist forces goes too far, giving too much authority to the president without debate in Congress.

Their letter cites language in the authorization bill that incorporates the Detainee Security Act, which affirms continued armed conflict against terrorists overseas.

“By declaring a global war against nameless individuals, organizations and nations ‘associated’ with the Taliban and al Qaeda, as well as those playing a supporting role in their efforts, the Detainee Security Act would appear to grant the president near unfettered authority to initiate military action around the world without further congressional approval,” Democrats wrote. “Such authority must not be ceded to the president without careful deliberation from Congress.”

The specific language in the bill is found in section 1034 of H.R. 1540, which affirms that the U.S. is “engaged in an armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces.” It also affirms that the president has the authority to detain “certain belligerents” until the armed conflict is over.

“Al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces still pose a grave threat to U.S. national security,” the bill says. “The Authorization for Use of Military Force necessarily includes the authority to address the continuing and evolving threat posed by these groups.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Writes:

New Authorization of Worldwide War Without End?

Congress may soon vote on a new declaration of worldwide war without end, and without clear enemies. A “sleeper provision” deep inside defense bills pending before Congress could become the single biggest hand-over of unchecked war authority from Congress to the executive branch in modern American history.

President Obama has not sought new war authority. In fact, his administration has made clear that it believes it already has all of the authority that it needs to fight terrorism.

But Congress is considering monumental new legislation that would grant the president – and all presidents after him – sweeping new power to make war almost anywhere and everywhere. Unlike previous grants of authority for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the proposed legislation would allow a president to use military force wherever terrorism suspects are present in the world, regardless of whether there has been any harm to U.S. citizens, or any attack on the United States, or any imminent threat of an attack. The legislation is broad enough to permit a president to use military force within the United States and against American citizens. The legislation contains no expiration date, and no criteria to determine when a president’s authority to use military force would end.

Of all of the powers that the Constitution assigns to Congress, no power is more fundamental or important than the power “to declare War.” That is why, in 2002, when Congress was considering whether to authorize war in Iraq, it held fifteen hearings, and passed legislation that cited specific harms, set limits, and defined a clear objective. Now, Congress is poised to give unchecked authority to the executive branch to use military force worldwide, with profoundly negative consequences for our fundamental democratic system of checks and balances. Once Congress expands the president’s war power, it will be nearly impossible to rein it back in. The ACLU strongly opposes a wholesale turnover of war power from Congress to the president – and all of his successors.
Coalition Memo to the House Committee on Armed Services Regarding a Proposed New Declaration of War
Comparison of 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force and Proposed Expanded Authorization

The offending text (Here In The Full Text Of H.R. 1540 – section 1034) uses doublespeak to declare World War 3. Specifically, the text uses the phrase “affirms” “armed conflict” which is the terminology used by congress declare war in every war since World War 2.

Congress affirms that —

(1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad;

(2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note);

(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and personswho—

(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al‐Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or

(B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and

(4) the President’s authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.

A joint letter regarding the proposed legislation has been sent to congress condemning the proposed legislation.

MEMORANDUM
TO:
All Members of the House Committee on Armed Services
FROM:
American Civil Liberties Union
Appeal for Justice
Brave New Foundation
Center for Constitutional Rights
CREDO Action
Defending Dissent Foundation
High Road for Human Rights
Human Rights First
International Justice Network
Just Foreign Policy
Leadership Conference of Women Religious
MoveOn.org
Muslim Public Affairs Council
New Security Action
Pax Christi USA
Peace Action
Physicians for Human Rights
Psychologists for Social Responsibility
Shalom Center
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society
USAction
Win Without War
DATE:
May 9th, 2010
RE:
Oppose Section 1034 and Any Similar New Declaration of War or New Authorization for Use of Military Force in the National Defense Authorization Act

The undersigned organizations strongly oppose the new Declaration of War, which is in Section 1034 of the Chairman’s mark for the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”). We urge you to oppose the provision and any other similar new Declaration of War or new Authorization for Use of Military Force (“AUMF”) in the NDAA.

While we have written separately, and met with many of you and your military legislative assistants, on our concerns with other provisions of the Chairman’s mark, we are writing on this new Declaration of War specifically because it is a provision that has received almost no review, despite its likely tremendous effect on almost every facet of United States national security policy. At minimum, Congress should hold hearings andfollow regular order before even considering such sweeping legislation.

This monumental legislation–with a large-scale and practically irrevocable delegation of war power from Congress to the President–could commit the United States to a worldwide war without clear enemies, without any geographical boundaries (the use of military force within the United States could be permitted), and without any boundary relating to time or specific objective to be achieved. Unlike the AUMF that authorized the Afghanistan War and the pursuit of Osama bin Laden, the proposed new Declaration of War does not cite any specific harm, such as the 9/11 attacks, or specific threat of harm to the United States. It appears to be stating that the United States is at war wherever terrorism suspects reside, regardless of whether there is any danger to the United States.

Under the guise of a “reaffirmation” of authority, Section 1034 of the Chairman’s mark for the NDAA would give the President unchecked authority–and if the section constitutes a declared “war,”1 possibly the unchecked duty2–to use military force worldwide against or within any country in which terrorism suspects reside. The proposed new Declaration of War would be without precedent in the scope of war authority or duties transferred by Congress to the President:

* The President would be able to use this authority–or might be required to use this authority–regardless of whether there has been any harm to United States citizens, or any attack on the United States or any imminent threat of any attack. There is not even any requirement of any threat whatsoever to the national security of the United States.
* There is no geographical limitation–the new Declaration of War has no specification of countries against which military force could be used, and no specification of countries where U.S. armed forces could be deployed with or without the permission of the host country. Military force could even be used within the United States and against American citizens.
* There is no specific objective for the new Declaration of War, which means that there is no clear criteria after which the President’s authority to use military force would expire. Although the proposed new Declaration of War lists “al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces” as the “threat,” there is no definition for any of these entities, which historically have been amorphous, with shifting names, memberships, and organizational relationships.
* If Congress broadly turns over to the President the power that Article I of the Constitution provides to Congress to declare war, it very likely will never get the power back. The broad terms of the proposed new Declaration of War could last for decades.
* Whether Congress realizes it or not, the proposed new Declaration of War would authorize the President to use the United States military against countries such as Somalia, Iran, or Yemen, or send the American military into any of the scores of countries where suspected terrorists reside, which include not only nearly all Middle East, African, and Asian countries, but also European countries and Canada–and of course, the United States itself. Under the expansive terms used for organizations in the proposed new Declaration of War, targets could include suspects having no connection to the 9/11 attacks or to any other specific harm or threat to the United States. The President would have the power to go to war almost anywhere, at any time, and based on the presence of suspects who do not have to pose any threat to the national security of the United States.
* If Section 1034 of the Chairman’s mark for the NDAA constitutes a declaration of war–which Congress has not declared since 1942–the declaration would trigger various exemptions from federal statutes and even broader authority for the President to control more aspects of both government and private businesses. The March 17, 2011 report from the Congressional Research Service, “Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications,” lists all of the statutory provisions, ranging from exemptions from budgetary limitations to new government claims over oil and mineral resources, that are triggered by a declaration of war.
* Of course, if Congress believes that there is a significant new threat to the national security of the United States that requires significant military force as a response, it can declare war or enact a new AUMF, but Congress should, at minimum, follow what it did in 2002 with the AUMF for the Iraq War, where it held fifteen hearings on the proposed war and passed an AUMF that cited specific harms, set limits, and defined a clear objective that, if met, would effectively terminate the AUMF. A specific declaration of war or a specific AUMF would better preserve the system of checks and balances and make an endless, worldwide war less likely.

To be clear, President Obama has not sought enactment of the proposed new Declaration of War. To the contrary, his Administration has made clear its position that it believes it already has all of the authority that it needs to fight terrorism. But if the proposed new Declaration of War becomes law, President Obama and all of his successors, until and unless a future Congress and future President repeal it, will have the sweeping new power to make war almost anywhere and everywhere.

Of all of the powers that Article I of the Constitution assigns to Congress, no power is more fundamental or important than the power “to declare War.” We urge you to use this power carefully, and to oppose this wholesale turnover of war power, without any checks–and without even holding a single hearing. Thank you for your attention to this issue, and we would be pleased to meet with you or your staff to discuss our concerns further.

1 The most critical sentence of section 1034 of the Chairman’s mark for the NDAA is “Congress affirms that the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad.” If “affirms” is replaced with the synonym “declares” and “armed conflict” is replaced with the synonym “war,” the result is “Congress declares that the United States is in a war with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces . . . “, which is very similar to the declaration of war clauses of the eleven declarations of war made by Congress, from the War of 1812 through World War II. Since 1942, Congress has passed several authorizations for use of military force, but has not made any declarations of war.

2 Although the question of whether a declaration of war imposes a duty on the President to carry out the war has only rarely come up in court decisions, at least one federal court, in comparing the legal consequences of a declaration of war with an authorization for use of military force, stated, “If war existed why empower the President to apprehend foreign enemies? War itself placed that duty upon him as a necessary and inherent incident of military command.” Gray v. United States, 21 Ct. Cl. 340, 373 (1886).

The bill has many other shocking elements as well, such as the requirement that all arrests related to terrorism be treated as military arrests (section 4), thus circumventing the constitution. Furthermore, legislation introduce under the McCain bill would make it illegal for military prisoners in US overseas torture prisons to be returned to US Facilities.

Indeed, the moment we all feared has come before us as the Congress meddles giving the President absolute power over the military, including the authority to launch military strikes within the United States against U.S. Citizens. With the assassination of Osama Bin Laden on Pakistan soil many of were naïve in believing that the War on Terror would come to an end.

Instead, the reported success of the raid is being used as a crutch to push through new legislation in the defense bills up for vote before congress which literally authorize World War 3, which will be declared as an endless war with no defined enemies and no borders. Short of committing genocide the termination of the hostilities will never come and as such the war will never come to end.

We have already learned that officials falsified reports that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion of Iraq for the “prize” of oil. If a whole government of top officials can not be trusted then surely a single president cannot be trusted either.



We have seen the U.S Government turn Nazi and buy and burn every copy of a book that had evidence of a 9/11 coverup. The Department of Justice has already published a memo calling constitutionalists and survivalist as potential terrorists.

Is it not bad enough that the U.S courts have already legalized the abduction of U.S Citizens along with their indefinite detention and torture in overseas prison camps? Or that the U.S Government openly admits to gunning down, kidnapping and torturing American college students?

Under the definition of the legislation, the President could authorize the military to attack the ACLU building because they have supported the “terrorists” by arguing for their civil rights.

It will not be long before they are assassinating activists. The have already labeled conspiracy theories as “dangerous thoughts that could lead to violence” and have even specifically called The Intel Hub, which routinely publishes my articles, as an echo chamber pushing out these “dangerous thoughts that could lead to violence”.

Uncle Sam openly admits to turning its multi-billion dollar espionage network against U.S Citizenswhich has produced such great fruits as innocent activists exercising their first amendment rights being placed on the terrorist watch list by the FBI and DHS.

Seriously, this is so out of control and it is only a time that the World War 3 is being fought against you and me. Just remember as long as we are in a state of war your civil liberties and constitutional rights are pretty much null and void, only enforceable if the Government allows you to have them. Even then, they can declare you as a terrorist, enemy combatant or a threat to national security to revoke your constitutional rights anyway. Then they can play the national security card when they are asked to explain their allegations.

All around this is rotten and the first step to getting our rights back is to end the perpetual wars.

Contact your congressman and tell them No Way to this egregious bill!

Update – Here is some corporate media coverage of this story, since some people like to see it in the mainstream media to believe it:

Critics: GOP bill a declaration of constant war
House Republicans want to reaffirm war against al-Qaida, the Taliban — and anyone else — with controversial bill
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_r..._on_terror

ALERT: Congress is About to Vote on Worldwide War Authority
The time is now to restore respect for the Constitution. Tell Congress that a blank check on war isn’t just unnecessary — it’s truly dangerous.
http://dailypaul.com/164384/alert-congre...-authority

ACLU Petition: Oppose New Worldwide War Authority
A few top congressional insiders are aiming to sneak new worldwide war authority in to a “must pass” piece of legislation: the Defense Authorization bill.
https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cm...10511_AUMF

GOP seeks to redefine war on terror
A little over a week after the United States finally succeeded in its long-sought goal of killing Osama bin Laden, Congress is set to engage in a debate over whether to extend the war on terror indefinitely or leave in place legislation that could eventually wind it down.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54636.html

Defense Bill Would ‘Affirm’ War With al Qaeda
Even though Osama bin Laden is dead, Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R., Calif.) wants to remind Washington: The war on terror ain’t over.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/05/09...-al-qaeda/

http://digg.com/news/world_news/congress_to_vote_on_declaration_of_world_war_3_an_endless_war_with_no_borders_no​_clear_enemies
http://twitter.com/FastTadpole/status/70902449296244736
http://axiomatica.org/whats-happening-ri...ar-enemies

Quote:Obama White House Threatens a Veto Over Worldwide War and Detention Provisions
May 24th, 2011
Posted by Chris Anders

Late this afternoon, the Obama White House threatened to VETO the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) bill that the House of Representatives is debating and voting on this week, if it includes a new law for worldwide war without end, or any of the bad Guantánamo detention and limitation of prosecution provisions that Chairman Buck McKeon of the House Armed Services Committee slipped into the bill.

The statement is the strongest and most principled stand the White House has taken on these kinds of provisions. The Obama administration is saying no to the proposed worldwide war law. A veto threat is a very big deal. The president is making clear where he stands, and is backing it up with his veto pen, if Congress doesn’t fix the bill.

Here’s what the White House told Congress:

“The Administration strongly objects to section 1034 [the worldwide war provision] which, in purporting to affirm the conflict, would effectively recharacterize its scope and would risk creating confusion regarding applicable standards. At a minimum, this is an issue that merits more extensive consideration before possible inclusion...”

On the NDAA’s troubling transfer restriction language, the administration said:

“…Section 1039 is a dangerous and unprecedented challenge to critical Executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. It unnecessarily constrains our Nation's counterterrorism efforts and would undermine our national security, particularly where our Federal courts are the best - or even the only - option for incapacitating dangerous terrorists…If the final bill presented to the president includes these provisions that challenge critical executive branch authority, the president's senior advisors would recommend a veto.”
...

Full Story: http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-securi...provisions

So they want it modified the circus of controlled opposition is firing on all three rings. A just as or more important bill on the table now is the renewal of the Patriot Act. Only 8 Senators oppose it.

The Patriot Act and bipartisanship
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_...rtisanship

Quote:There’s a Secret Patriot Act, Senator Says
By Spencer Ackerman Email Author
May 25, 2011



Congress is set to reauthorize three controversial provisions of the surveillance law as early as Thursday. But Wyden says that what Congress will renew is a mere fig leaf for a far broader legal interpretation of the Patriot Act that the government keeps to itself — entirely in secret. Worse, there are hints that the government uses this secret interpretation to gather what one Patriot-watcher calls a “dragnet” for massive amounts of information on private citizens; the government portrays its data-collection efforts much differently.

What exactly does Wyden mean by that? As a member of the intelligence committee, he laments that he can’t precisely explain without disclosing classified information. But one component of the Patriot Act in particular gives him immense pause: the so-called “business-records provision,” which empowers the FBI to get businesses, medical offices, banks and other organizations to turn over any “tangible things” it deems relevant to a security investigation.

“It is fair to say that the business-records provision is a part of the Patriot Act that I am extremely interested in reforming,” Wyden says. “I know a fair amount about how it’s interpreted, and I am going to keep pushing, as I have, to get more information about how the Patriot Act is being interpreted declassified. I think the public has a right to public debate about it.”

That’s why Wyden and his colleague Sen. Mark Udall offered an amendment on Tuesday to the Patriot Act reauthorization.

The amendment, first reported by Marcy Wheeler, blasts the administration for “secretly reinterpret[ing] public laws and statutes.” It would compel the Attorney General to “publicly disclose the United States Government’s official interpretation of the USA Patriot Act.” And, intriguingly, it refers to “intelligence-collection authorities” embedded in the Patriot Act that the administration briefed the Senate about in February.

Surveillance under the business-records provisions has recently spiked. The Justice Department’s official disclosure on its use of the Patriot Act, delivered to Congress in April, reported that the government asked the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for approval to collect business records 96 times in 2010 — up from just 21 requests the year before. The court didn’t reject a single request. But it “modified” those requests 43 times, indicating to some Patriot-watchers that a broadening of the provision is underway.

“The FISA Court is a pretty permissive body, so that suggests something novel or particularly aggressive, not just in volume, but in the nature of the request,” says Michelle Richardson, the ACLU’s resident Patriot Act lobbyist. “No one has tipped their hand on this in the slightest. But we’ve come to the conclusion that this is some kind of bulk collection. It wouldn’t be surprising to me if it’s some kind of internet or communication-records dragnet.” (Full disclosure: My fiancée works for the ACLU.)

The FBI deferred comment on any secret interpretation of the Patriot Act to the Justice Department. The Justice Department said it wouldn’t have any comment beyond a bit of March congressional testimony from its top national security official, Todd Hinnen, who presented the type of material collected as far more individualized and specific: “driver’s license records, hotel records, car-rental records, apartment-leasing records, credit card records, and the like.”

....

Full Story: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/...triot-act/

More:

Business Record Provision amended to Patriot Act Renewal
Sounds a little like Bill C-6 in Canada in a roundabout way concerning the disclosure of confidential business documents and import tracking.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/02...-extended/

Wyden and Udall Want Obama to Admit to Secret Collection Program
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/0...n-program/

The NDAA will likely be voted on Monday or Tuesday by the Senate.

The Department of Homeland Security's new theme. You who oppose the State are the Enemy and must be processed. If You See Something, Say Something .. Where have I heard that before?





Related:

Pentagon's Cyber Command: Civilian Infrastructure a "Legitimate" Target
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=32606

Senate defeats liberty amendments, approves “Battlefield” USA
by Joel McDurmon on Nov 30, 2011
Link

Despite attempts by Rand Paul (R-KY) to uphold the Constitution, the Senate approved Levin and McCain’s bill advancing military powers on U.S. soil and against U.S. citizens. The bill which already passed the House passed the Senate 61-37.

Now, in a twist of frightening irony, the only hope to preserve liberty in this case is Obama’s promise to veto the bill.

The bill, according to Lindsey Graham (RINO-SC), would define America as part of the “battlefield.” It authorizes the military to detain American citizens without warrant, without court order, without due process, without trial, without access to an attorney, indefinitely—based purely on the military’s suspicion.

Mark Udall (D-CO) offered an amendment to replace the indefinite detention sections with language calling for further study of the matter. Rand Paul went even further, offering an amendment to strike it completely. Both were defeated, even after Paul’s solemn warning that it destroys the Constitutional protections of Americans and supports perpetual war:

this bill explicitly states that no part of this bill is to imply any restriction on the authorization to use force. No congressional review is allowed or imagined. No victory is defined. No peace is possible if victory is made impossible by definition.

He cites James Madison: ”The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become instruments of tyranny at home.”

He continued, “We are talking about people who are merely SUSPECTED of a crime. And we are talking about American citizens. If these provisions pass, we could see American citizens being sent to Guantanamo Bay.”

Paul asked McCain on the floor for confirmation that the bill would authorize targeting even Americans. McCain responded candidly: it can target them “no matter who they are.”

Paul also offered an amendment calling Congress to declare a formal end to military force in Irag, since troops are now being withdrawn anyway. This also was defeated.

Now this endangered thread of the Constitution hangs upon a promise from Obama.

Video of Rand Paul comments on the floor





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So....anyone here think Obama will actually veto this bill?
And yes I have my issues with Rand Paul and some of the things he believes in but in the matter of this bill I agree with what he's said here.

Of course Obama won't veto this bill. This is all staged drama to make the public think there are "good guys" in government working for us.

(12-01-2011 11:20 PM)Easy Skanking Wrote: [ -> ]Of course Obama won't veto this bill. This is all staged drama to make the public think there are "good guys" in government working for us.

My thoughts exactly Easy...more theater. It would not surprise me one bit to see Obama sign this into law the 1st chance he gets.
This is some serious legislation too. I need to read more of it, so far Ive just skimmed it but damn...Im very much not in a good mood over this bullshit.

The bill can be looked at here if anyone is interested...
S.1867

Pass the senate on December 1st:

S.1867 - Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

An original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes

Some interesting amendments procured from http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s1867/amendments :

Passed: To provide authority to order Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Air Force Reserve to active duty to provide assistance in response to a major disaster or emergency.

Passed: To enhance the national defense through empowerment of the National Guard, enhancement of the functions of the National Guard Bureau, and improvement of Federal-State military coordination in domestic emergency response.

A stronger domestic military. Disaster, Emergency those are vague terms. It was the first amendment passed. Perhaps spurned in part due to the OWS incidents, particularly in Oakland.

Denied: To provide Taiwan with critically needed United States-built multirole fighter aircraft to strengthen its self-defense capability against the increasing military threat from China.

It seems Taiwan has been ceded to China, they backed down from this position: http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/01/30/us-...ers-china/

Denied: To require the detention at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, of high-value enemy combatants who will be detained long-term.

Obama makes good on a promise. So where are they being shipped to now?

Denied: To authorize educational assistance under the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship program for pursuit of advanced degrees in physical therapy and occupational therapy.

Quite a change from WWII the veterans' program to provide education to transition back to society. So the troops that come home can employ their transferable skills with private security or as mercenaries or join the unemployed.

Denied: To clarify the application of the provisions of the Buy American Act to the procurement of photovoltaic devices by the Department of Defense

Leaves a loophole to import Solar tech, which is a mandatory purchase, from foreign China like the green aviation fuel they are importing and subsidizing in India.

Denied: To prohibit funding for any unit of a security force of Pakistan if there is credible evidence that the unit maintains connections with an organization known to conduct terrorist activities against the United States or United States allies.

Well that would rule out a lot of private mercenaries that play both sides (Balckwater/XE?).

Passed: To authorize the acquisition of real property and associated real property interests in the vicinity of Hanover, New Hampshire, as may be needed for the Engineer Research and Development Center laboratory facilities at the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory.

Land Grab. Preparing for polar conflict in Canada/Russia? More info CRREL.

Passed: To provide for the consideration of energy security and reliability in the development and implementation of energy performance goals.

More forced green purchases. Policy influence for DESERTEC sites like Libya.

Passed: To promote increased acquisition and procurement exchanges between officials in the Department of Defense and defense officials in India.

Steps towards a one world army and/or shifting military power balance to the East.

Denied: To include the Department of Commerce in contract authority using competitive procedures but excluding particular sources for establishing certain research and development capabilities.

More no bid exclusive contracts with cronies. Technology transfer?

Denied: To authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance to State National Guards to provide counseling and reintegration services for members of reserve components of the Armed Forces ordered to active duty in support of a contingency operation, members returning from such active duty, veterans of the Armed Forces, and their families.

Just give them drugs I suppose right? That should help the community. /s

Denied: To provide rights of grievance, arbitration, appeal, and review beyond the adjutant general for military technicians.

That would have helped out Bradley Manning.

Passed: To authorize a land conveyance and exchange at Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson, Alaska.

Another bolstering of polar defences.

Denied: To recognize the service in the reserve components of the Armed Forces of certain persons by honoring them with status as veterans under law

So they can use reserves in domestic military situations and still deny them veteran status.

Denied: To prohibit the permanent stationing of more than two Army Brigade Combat Teams within the geographic boundaries of the United States European Command.

More One World Army legislation.

Denied: To include ultralight vehicles in the definition of aircraft for purposes of the aviation smuggling provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930.

Leaves a loophole for the drug trade all open skies.

Passed: To require reports to Congress on the modification of the force structure for strategic nuclear weapons delivery systems of the United States.

Keep an eye out for that report.

Denied: To require notification of Congress with respect to the initial custody and further disposition of members of al-Qaeda and affiliated entities.

Keeps us in the dark on Patriot Act enforced people snatching.

Passed: To require exploration of opportunities to increase foreign military training with allies at test and training ranges in the continental United States

Passed: To authorize the exchange with the United Kingdom of certain F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter aircraft

More one world army legislation.

Denied: To require a Department of Defense Inspector General report on theft of computer tapes containing protected information on covered beneficiaries under the TRICARE program

Why not investigate?

Passed: To require a Comptroller General Report on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) initiatives.

A report to whom? More on STEM Education. Cyberwarfare, drone pilot training?

Passed: To require the Secretary of Defense to submit, with the budget justification materials supporting the Department of Defense budget request for fiscal year 2013, information on the implementation of recommendations made by the Government Accountability Office with respect to the acquisition of launch services through the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program.

Space war. EELV is a United Launch Services project outsourced to private industry giant Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

Passed: To require a plan for normalizing defense cooperation with the Republic of Georgia

More One World Army Legislation.

Passed:To require a plan for the expedited transition of responsibility for military and security operations in Afghanistan to the Government of Afghanistan.

The military is behind schedule on this one. It involves training more foreign troops.

Denied: To require the imposition of sanctions with respect to the financial sector of Iran, including the Central Bank of Iran

Economic warfare with Iran put on hold. They may have some loose ends to tie up.

A great deal of amendments were listed as "details not available" including all of the amendments considered on November 28th and I couldn't connect to http://hdl.loc.gov at the time of this post.

What a busy bunch of parasites, thanks for the roundup FT.

Here's some more amendments that were proposed on the final day of senate debate since I have access to the DB now:

Denied: SENSE OF CONGRESS ON PROTECTION OF CRITICAL COMPONENTS OF THE UNITED STATES ELECTRIC POWER GRID FROM ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE EVENTS.

I suppose EM weapons are not enough of a threat or civilian electric infrastructure is not high enough a priority to justify the expenditure.

Denied: The United States Executive Director of the International Monetary Fund shall use the voice and vote of the United States to oppose-- any increase in the quota of the United States in the Fund for any purpose; and the use of contributions of the United States to the Fund to provide funding for the European Financial Stability Facility or any program related to the Facility.

So the US cannot veto their own IMF contributions?

Denied: IMPROVEMENT OF COMBATANT COMMAND THEATER POSTURE PLANNING UNDER THE JOINT STRATEGIC CAPABILITIES PLAN.

Review expenses and explore alternatives to budget for United States Pacific Command, the United States Africa Command, the United States Southern Command, the United States European Command, and the United States Central Command is denied.

Denied: UNITED STATES COMMITMENTS TO SAFETY, RELIABILITY, AND PERFORMANCE OF UNITED STATES NUCLEAR FORCES AND MODERNIZATION AND REPLACEMENT OF STRATEGIC NUCLEAR DELIVERY VEHICLES.

Revoking any guaranteed competence and funding for nuclear weapons programs. Backing off of the MAD strategy?

Denied: DESIGNATION OF THE HAQQANI NETWORK AS A FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.

Despite the obvious (attack on the U.S. embassy in Kabul and on ISAF headquarters in Kabul) the group is not deemed a terrorist organization.

Denied: ADEQUACY OF CONTRACTING OFFICER REPRESENTATIVES TO PREVENT WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE.

Increase oversight of the 1000s of private military troops and contractors. Despite the billions spent on them this somehow failed to pass.

Denied: $10,000,000 shall be available for the diagnosis and treatment of Gulf War Illness within the peer-reviewed Gulf War Illness Research Program of the Army run by Congressionally Directed Medical Research.

I suppose the fodder isn't worth it or maybe it could reveal something sinister.

Denied: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PARTICIPATION IN EUROPEAN PROGRAM ON MULTILATERAL EXCHANGE OF AIR TRANSPORTATION AND AIR REFUELING SERVICES.

Keep the arrangement a fuel to fuel transfer or at least require reviewable equitable exchange of funds and facility use to EU Military forces. Well that would close a nice loophole to transfer power from the US to the global military wouldn't it?

Denied: COMPTROLLER GENERAL STUDY OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND INVESTMENT TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF RENEWABLE ENERGY GOALS.

No audit of performance or review of the advertised cost savings from the sweeping changes to military energy use and sources such as solar or biofuels -- which is largely comprised of subsidized foreign purchase deals.

Denied: Nothing in this title or any amendment made by this title shall be construed to apply to the authorized law enforcement activities, protective duties, or intelligence activities of the United States, including any activities of an element of the intelligence community, or any State or subdivision of a State.

So I guess it can be construed.

Denied: ANNUAL REPORT ON MILITARY AND SECURITY DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

Proposed amendment struck down to address covert proxy powers of Chinese military strength in other nations or account for any foreign military hardware and software stockpiles in Chinese possession.

Denied: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, surplus or excess tangible property of the Department of Defense shall be disposed of solely by public sale.

That would have closed off a lot of sweet insider and crony deals.

Denied: LIMIT REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS INCURRED BY UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES FOR PROCESSING AND ADJUDICATING APPLICATIONS FOR CITIZENSHIP OF MILITARY PERSONNEL.

No limit to the immigration back door through military enrolment. It won't even effect their budget no matter how much they spend. It also revokes this limitation "To be eligible for membership in the Corps, a person must be a citizen of the United States authorized by law to be employed in the United States, have attained the age of 18 years...."

Denied: Limitation on Applicability to United States Persons.--Authority to detain a person under this section does not extend to citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States.''.

Martial Law.

Great breakdown FT.

Quote:Obama Wants to Veto the Indefinite Detention Bill Because It Would Hold the U.S. to the Geneva Convention

I – like everyone else – am horrified by the Senate’s passage of legislation that would allow for indefinite detention of Americans.

And at first, I – like many others – assumed that Obama’s threat to veto the bill might be a good thing. But the truth is much more disturbing.

As former Wall Street Street editor and columnist Paul Craig Roberts correctly notes:

The Obama regime’s objection to military detention is not rooted in concern for the constitutional rights of American citizens. The regime objects to military detention because the implication of military detention is that detainees are prisoners of war. As Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin put it: Should somebody determined “to be a member of an enemy force who has come to this nation or is in this nation to attack us as a member of a foreign enemy, should that person be treated according to the laws of war? The answer is yes.”

Detainees treated according to the laws of war have the protections of the Geneva Conventions. They cannot be tortured. The Obama regime opposes military detention, because detainees would have some rights. These rights would interfere with the regime’s ability to send detainees to CIA torture prisons overseas. [Yes, Obama is still apparently allowing "extraordinary renditions" to torture people abroad.] This is what the Obama regime means when it says that the requirement of military detention denies the regime “flexibility.”

The Bush/Obama regimes have evaded the Geneva Conventions by declaring that detainees are not POWs, but “enemy combatants,” “terrorists,” or some other designation that removes all accountability from the US government for their treatment.

By requiring military detention of the captured, Congress is undoing all the maneuvering that two regimes have accomplished in removing POW status from detainees.

A careful reading of the Obama regime’s objections to military detention supports this conclusion. (See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/...11117.pdf)

The November 17 letter to the Senate from the Executive Office of the President says that the Obama regime does not want the authority it has under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Public Law 107-40, to be codified. Codification is risky, the regime says. “After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country.”

In other words, the regime is saying that under AUMF the executive branch has total discretion as to who it detains and how it treats detainees. Moreover, as the executive branch has total discretion, no one can find out what the executive branch is doing, who detainees are, or what is being done to them. Codification brings accountability, and the executive branch does not want accountability.

Those who see hope in Obama’s threatened veto have jumped to conclusions if they think the veto is based on constitutional scruples.

the rest here> http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/t...berty.html

Quote:By Sherwood Ross
BlacklistedNews.com

The grim face of totalitarianism is emerging in the National Defense Authorization Act(NDAA) now before Congress.

This bill is the last mile post on America’s sad, well-traveled road to the butcher shop of dictatorship. We have been headed that way for some time and, with a little help from Congress, we’ll arrive there shortly, putting an ugly end to the American experiment. The Senate December 1st passed the bill by a vote of 93-7.

In the name of “defense,” NDAA underwrites $662-billion for continued U.S. aggression in our many foreign wars while, on the domestic front, it incinerates the last surviving shreds of the Bill of Rights. According to the American Civil Liberties Union(ACLU), it authorizes presidents “to order the military to pick up and imprison people, including U.S. citizens, without charging them or putting them on trial.” (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) So much for Amendment VI to our Constitution that “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.”

Just destroying your protection against arbitrary arrest and imprisonment means the bill’s authors Senators Carl Levin of Michigan and John McCain of Arizona don’t have to bother with junking anything else. Once you’re imprisoned you won’t need any other “stinkin’ rights.”

The ACLU charges the provisions of NDAA “were negotiated by a small group of members of Congress, in secret, and without proper congressional review (and), are inconsistent with fundamental American values embodied in the Constitution....(our) fundamental freedoms are on the line.”

A few years back, President Carter denounced the Patriot Act for authorizing federal agents “to search people’s homes and businesses secretly, to confiscate property without any deadline or without giving notice that the intrusion had taken place, and to collect without notice personal information on American citizens including their medical histories, books checked out of libraries, and goods they purchase.” The NDAA is far worse than that.

According to Noam Chomsky, the arbitrary arrest philosophy in this country dates back to the Bush regime. “The current (Bush) government,” he writes in “Imperial Ambitions”(Metropolitan Books, 2005), “has claimed rights that go beyond any precedents, including even the right to arrest citizens, hold them in detention without access to their family or lawyers, and do so indefinitely, without charges.”

“What the American People are witnessing now with this new legislation is the further development of an American Police State into a Military Dictatorship, a process that was started by the so-called USA Patriot Act in 2001,” says Professor Francis Boyle, the constitutional law authority at the University of Illinois, Champaign.

“If it is enacted into law, America will lose all pretense of having our Military subjected to the control of democratically elected civilian leaders as originally envisioned and required by the Constitution. Our experiment in 1776 will have failed,” adds Boyle, author of “Tackling America’s Toughest Questions”(Clarity Press.)

President Obama is already exercising his kingly right to rain Hellfire missiles from drone assault planes down on any human being anywhere on the planet without a legal authorization. This is called assassination as it is utterly devoid of any semblance of rudimentary justice. Unfortunately, the president appears to have no qualms about his actions. Will such a man hesitate to arrest Americans on suspicion and imprison them for years, or worse, without trial?

Adds the prescient Paul Craig Roberts, “The (Obama) regime’s objection to (the) military detention (provision in NDAA) is not rooted in concern for the constitutional rights of American citizens. The regime objects to military detention because the implication of military detention is that detainees are prisoners of war...(and) detainees treated according to the laws of war have the protections of the Geneva Conventions. They cannot be tortured. The Obama regime opposes military detention, because detainees would have some rights. These rights would interfere with the regime’s ability to send detainees to CIA torture prisons overseas.”

Perhaps this is a good time to remind swindled American taxpayers that totalitarianism is what comes of funding a perpetual warfare state that spies on all global communications, builds the greatest military in human history, assassinates foreign leaders, overthrows elected governments, invades small nations based on lies to seize their natural resources, and threatens the world from its 800 military bases.

The NDAA perpetuates all this and now endows the criminal leadership in Congress and the White House with the weapons to turn upon their own.

The only senators with guts to oppose the bill were Democrats Tom Harkin of Iowa; Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley of Oregon; Republicans Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Mike Lee of Utah, Rand Paul of Kentucky; and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont. As Sen. Paul asked during the debate, "Under the provisions, wouldn't it be possible, then, that an American citizen could be declared an enemy combatant and sent to Guantanamo Bay and detained indefinitely?"

If you don’t call your congressperson today to stop the NDAA, you are not likely to enjoy the blessings of liberty tomorrow. The light in the torch of the Statue of Liberty has already been snuffed out by our illegal foreign wars. The final disgrace will be to imprison the beautiful lady behind the barbed wire of the NDAA.

http://www.blacklistednews.com/U.S._one_...0/Y/M.html

yup...

The velvet glove has been removed from the hand of government - now even the sheeple can see the iron fist.

The scales are now gone that the sheeple wore gladly over their eyes so they could deny the truth, yet snicker at the heralds who spoke it. But those scales did not fall.

Those scales were torn from the eyes of the sheeple by the murderous fist. Now the fist is pointing a finger right at the sheeple, while an ominous whisper informs them that they too can disappear forever without trial.