Bill S -1867, NDAA, The Lock Up Americans Free Pass Act

0
Share

We are 3 Million strong, armed in the Holy cause of Liberty…we serve a just God, who will bring friends to fight for us in our battle.

~ Patrick Henry

Uh, Oh, the National Defense Authorization Act gets worse all the time. Not being a Constitutional lawyer, details escape me and that old “trust your government belief” keeps creeping back in – when will I ever learn? If you don’t know what this recently passed bill is about, click here.

The following information is written and/or produced by Kris Anne Hall who is a Constitutional lawyer dedicated to the preservation of our personal liberties. KrisAnneHall’s blog has information only a Constitutional lawyer can give. I am sharing some of her information here.

Here is her trailer. I love listening to her because she loves the Bill of Rights and Constitution as much as I do.

More About S- 1867 from KrisAnneHall-

I would like to know how Congress can justify just one hour of debate over something that is so important, so controversial, and so questionable.  I truly enjoyed Congressman Jerrold Nadler’s argument on the floor.  He pointed out that many Constitutional Jurists and Military experts are vehemently opposed to this bill, indicating the very destruction of the rights we are trying to protect from terrorist attack. He also did an amazing thing; he shut down the argument that we must pass this bill with these sections so the Military will get funded.  He explained that they had plenty of time to fail the bill, take out these malignant provisions, bring the bill back and pass it before the end of the week.  What would be so hard about that?  Why couldn’t they do just what Rep. Nadler proposed?

As I watched these debates and listened to the arguments over the last few days, I have become so very perplexed at how those who deny the very language of this bill can do so with such conviction.  There is such a dishonesty associated with what they are saying.  Time and time again I have heard that this bill specifically excluded US Citizens. NO IT DOES NOT.  You have to be illiterate or purposefully disingenuous to put forth such an argument.  The section specifically says: “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”  Legally speaking, stating that an agency is “not required” to do something is the very same as saying they have the choice of doing so or not.  If the drafters of this legislation truly wanted to exclude US Citizens from having their Constitutional rights stripped, the lawyers should have used the type of language found in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)(2), the section that contains religious exemptions for employment practices or the various religious and medical exemptions that exist from state to state for things like vaccinations. They are legislators, they have to know that! 

On top of that, section 1032(4) specifically provides a military waiver anytime national security dictates a need! “The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirements of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.”  There you have it. All limitations fly out the window if the government determines a “national security interest”. 

This morning I found a jewel, a light bulb came on in my mind.  Something that made me want to scream out loud!  I was in the middle of a twitter argument over this bill and this person was absolutely adamant that the language of the bill stated that military detention was “inapplicable to U.S. citizens or U.S. lawful resident aliens.” I finally asked my new twitter friend to send me a link to the bill because I could not find that language. What I got was a link to the Bill Summary and Status, the CRS Summary.  I could not believe what I was seeing.  The very summary put out by Congress describing this bill was a blatant misrepresentation of the bill itself.  The summary stated that section 1032 had specific language that said the detention provisions were “inapplicable to US Citizens”.  That is not an accurate summary, it is blatant propaganda!  The language, “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States” is not even close to saying detention is inapplicable to US Citizens.  How many Congressmen just read the summary and based their entire argument on that lie? Read here: KrisAnneHall.com


Share