NDAA of 2012 Signed, Sealed, and Delivered by Congress to the President.

Congress delivered the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 to the steps of the White House on December 21. The timing seems intentional. By congressional procedure, after ten days, without a veto, the bill becomes law with, or without, the President’s signature (The signature is largely ceremonious after the ten day waiting period). President Obama is in Hawaii on vacation. The NDAA of 2012 will become law by default midnight 12-31-2011.

The “detain US citizens” section of the current NDAA reads differently than it did a few weeks ago. Note that a variety of groups from both major parties, and many independent souls, did bring a heap of grassroots political pressure to the hill during the past few weeks against the “US citizen detainment” authorization in the bill. Congress has since soften the language around the issue of the military being authorized to detain US citizens. See Sections 1022 through 1034.

Section 1024, however, remains very disturbing. Section 1024 of the NDAA of 2012 allows the Secretary of Defense to change the rules in the ‘detain persons’ sections at anytime, as long as he notifies Congress within 60 days. This “smells” bad. This is worse than before, and thus easily qualifies for a Presidential veto. Unless, circumventing the US Constitution is the intention. This clause violates the Bill of Rights, upsets the separation of powers, and puts the military above all three branches of government. In most other countries, we usually call this a military coup, albeit a non-violent one. A non-violent coup is dangerous in that most people being ruled do not see it happen. Edward Luttwak, a military historian, defines a coup simply as follows, “A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder.”

National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal 2012, Section 1022, does contain this phrase:

“The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”

Section 1021, however, does not contain this phrase. Nor does Section 1024. This missing is significant if you catch the “under this section” phrase in the above excerpt. The “detainee” discussion in the bill is divided into multiple sections.

So, the people’s voices were heard. But we can not claim victory for the people. Moreover, it must be noted, and cannot be denied in light of this bill, that there is an embolden effort by groups associated with the US military and law enforcement, likely profit driven, to circumvent the constitutional rights of US citizens (Detainment centers make billions of dollars per year off of people being detain). Not to mention the misguided, power hungry individuals who might be behind this push. These people are known throughout world history to achieve power at interesting times. So we must continue to be vigilant, and willing, in a forthright way, to take a stand for our natural born freedoms, and not give into fear.

FYI, most of the NDAA of fiscal 2012 is a highly important, functional military authorization document that provides a great many needed items and guidance to the military. The detainee sections should not have been added to this bill. They were likely added because there is no way they would get passed on their own. The parties responsible probably took a gambled that the sections would pass if tucked away neatly inside the NDAA. It’s a great gamble when facing bendable opposition. They were right. The bill passed.

The great people of Montana did not put up with this bill, however. They have launched recall efforts against their Senators who passed the NDAA bill.

Leaders who undermine the US Constitution should be voted out of office. Period. Especially, if they have assumed office by swearing to protect it. No exceptions. It’s our duty as citizens to enforce this.

I am beginning to understand why they occupy.