1.4.13: Jack Blood goes on a 1 hr rant exposing the Obama admin and congress re-upping: Killer Drones, assassination lists, the NDAA, and rendition / torture. (added benefit of mass hypocrisy by democrats and supporters!) ALSO – www.enerfood.com Alchemist and Master herbalist Darren Craddock is back! HOUR TOO – JACK IN JOINED LIVE BY WWW.DEADLINELIVE.INFO scribe, Joel “redacted”. Discussion gets into the ommisions and distortions by the US media regarding the Newtown CT Shootings, and the pending 2013 war for Africa. PLEASE SUPPORT THE SPONSORS and contribute via pay pal to our cause!!!!
President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 on Wednesday, giving his stamp of approval to a Pentagon spending bill that will keep Guantanamo Bay open and make indefinite detention for US citizens as likely as ever.
The president inked his name to the 2013 NDAA on Wednesday evening to little fanfare, and accompanied his signature with a statement condemning a fair number of provisions contained in a bill that he nevertheless endorsed.
The NDAA, an otherwise mundane annual bill that lays out the use of funds for the Department of Defense, has come under attack during the Obama administration for the introduction of a provision last year that allows the military to detain United States citizens indefinitely without charge or trial for mere suspicions of ties to terrorism. Under the 2012 NDAA’s Sec. 1021, Pres. Obama agreed to give the military the power to arrest and hold Americans without the writ of habeas corpus, although he promised with that year’s signing statement that his administration would not abuse that privilege.
The Senate passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that was stripped of a prohibition of the indefinite military detention of US citizens on American soil by an 81-14 vote on Friday, but only after a furious dissent on the chamber’s floor by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who called it an “abomination.”
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 will now head to the White House, which had earlier pledged to veto the NDAA because it prevents the president from closing the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. It is unclear whether the president will follow through on the threat.
The NDAA is a reauthorization of the large budget bill that sets the budget for a wide range of military activities, but it has proven most controversial for a provision that critics say would allow the military to abuse its detention powers to lock Americans away on the mere suspicion of support for terrorist groups.
Ninety nine years ago this month, the law that brought the Federal Reserve System into existence was passed. It did so at the behest of some very wealthy and very greedy men who wanted nothing less than total control of as much of the world’s total wealth that they could possibly get their hands on. These men with names like Aldrich, Rockefeller, Rothschild, Vanderlip, Kuhn, Loeb, Warburg, Morgan, Schiff, et al. wanted nothing less than total control of finances, currencies and economies worldwide. They wanted it so badly that they cared not what the majority might think, and they certainly didn’t care what the common folk at the time might think. These were the robber barons of finance in their day, and they knew the general public wouldn’t trust them or their banking schemes. It was for this reason they had to remain secretive in their plans and use every deception and political dirty trick in their arsenal to achieve their goals. Read more
LANSING, Mich. (Dec. 5, 2012) – The Michigan House of Representatives unanimously voted in favor of House bill 5768 (HB5768) today. Representative Tom McMillin, who introduced the bill, showed his excitement for it’s passage, and his expectations for the State Senate.
“My bill opposing NDAA’s indefinite detention and taking away due process and prohibiting MI government from participating passed the House today. Onto the State Senate!”
Due to support from a wide coalition of grassroots activists across the political spectrum, the bill passed unanimously. The final vote was 107-0. HB5768 asserts that no State employee or agency will assist the Federal government – in any way – in the detainment of people under the 2012 NDAA. The Obama administration has aggressively argued in court that the executive branch has this power. The bill states, in part,
“no agency of this state, no political subdivision of this state, no employee of an agency of this state or a political subdivision of this state acting in his or her official capacity, and no member of the Michigan national guard on official state duty shall aid an agency of the armed forces of the United States in any investigation, prosecution, or detention of any person pursuant to section 1021 of the national defense authorization act…”
HB5768 was first introduced on June 14, 2012 by Representatives McMillin, MacMaster, Irwin, Ananich, Foster, and McBroom, and was referred to the Committee on Government Operations.
The bill will now move on to the Senate for further consideration and concurrence.
Here’s the added clause in question:
“Nothing in the AUMF or the 2012 NDAA shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or to deny any Constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution for any person who is lawfully in the United States when detained pursuant to the AUMF and who is otherwise entitled to the availability of such writ or such rights.”
Yesterday we focused on the line “nothing … shall be construed to deny … any constitutional Rights …”
But today we offer another interpretation from Bruce Afran, a lawyer for the group of journalists and activists suing the government over the 2012 NDAA.
Afran explained that the new provision gives U.S. citizens a right to go to civilian (i.e. Article III) court based on “any [applicable] constitutional rights,” but since there are are no rules in place to exercise this right, detained U.S. citizens currently have no way to gain access to lawyers, family or the court itself once they are detained within the military.
“The biggest thing about the  NDAA was that you weren’t getting a trial … Nothing in here says that you’ll make it to an Article III court so it literally does nothing,” Dan Johnson, founder of People Against the NDAA, told BI. “It’s a bunch of words, basically,”
Afran noted that the newest version actually goes further than the NDAA that’s now in effect.
“The new statute actually states that persons lawfully in the U.S. can be detained under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force [AUMF]. The original (the statute we are fighting in court) never went that far,” Afran said. “Therefore, under the guise of supposedly adding protection to Americans, the new statute actually expands the AUMF to civilians in the U.S.”
The suit against the government challenges the indefinite detention provisions of section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA—which allow the military to indefinitely detain anyone who commits a “belligerent act” or provides “substantial support” to the Taliban, al-Qaeda or “associated forces”—on the grounds that certain terms were unconstitutionally vague and could chill free speech.
The provisions were permanently blocked by Judge Katherine Forrest but went back into effect after Appeals Court Judge Raymond Lohier reinstated them in October because he agreed with the government that section 1021 was simply a “reaffirmation” of the AUMF, which gives the president the authority to indefinitely detain anyone involved in carrying out the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The newest version of the NDAA seems to be equating the AUMF and section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA—which the government has argued all along—and thereby codifies precisely what the plaintiffs are fighting in court.
All of this makes the lawsuit—which will probably go all the way to the Supreme Court—central to the issue of the indefinite detention of Americans.
The bottom line, according to Afran, is that the NDAA “is still unconstitutional because it allows citizens or persons in the U.S. to be held in military custody, a position that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held is unconstitutional.”
Do as we say, not as we do? BECAUSE we can….
Let’s ask the question here: Should Barack Obama and the Congress be arrested and sent to Gitmo for violating the NDAA. After all the Congress passed it and Barack Obama signed it. I’m sure much of you believe that more than that should happen and it wouldn’t just be dependent upon the NDAA, but does what happened last week indicate that such persons as Barack Obama, Lindsey Graham, and John McCain should be wearing and orange jump suit an some leg irons soon?
Understand something, Congress passes some 55,000 pages a year in new laws! Yet, for the most part they never read one page of them. They passed the NDAA into law. What’s worse is that GOP presumptive nominee Mitt Romney said that he supported NDAA as written, thus withholding the rights of citizens to due process, under the Constitution, because he says so.
The NDAA text affirms the President’s authority to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person,
“who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,” and anyone who commits a “belligerent act” against the U.S. or its coalition allies, under the law of war, “without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF].”
The text also authorizes trial by military tribunal, or
“transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin,” or transfer to “any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.”
An amendment to the Act that would have explicitly forbidden the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens was rejected by the Senate.
According to a Reuters story from Wednesday, August 1, 2012, Barack Obama and the Congress authorized support, specifically $25 million of taxpayer money, to help Syrian rebels,
President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government, sources familiar with the matter said.
Obama’s order, approved earlier this year and known as an intelligence “finding,” broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad.
This and other developments signal a shift toward growing, albeit still circumscribed, support for Assad’s armed opponents – a shift that intensified following last month’s failure of the U.N. Security Council to agree on tougher sanctions against the Damascus government.
The White House is for now apparently stopping short of giving the rebels lethal weapons, even as some U.S. allies do just that.
What most people aren’t asking is, just who are these rebels? Well the answer lies buried at the bottom of the article:
Recent news reports from the region have suggested that the influence and numbers of Islamist militants, some of them connected to al Qaeda or its affiliates, have been growing among Assad’s opponents.
U.S. and European officials say that, so far, intelligence agencies do not believe the militants’ role in the anti-Assad opposition is dominant.
While U.S. and allied government experts believe that the Syrian rebels have been making some progress against Assad’s forces lately, most believe the conflict is nowhere near resolution, and could go on for years.
Does anyone else sense an Eurasia, Eastasia flavor to any of this? For those no familiar, those are the alleged allies, then enemies of Oceania in George Orwell’s 1984. The people never know if they are at war with one or if they are its allies.
Well America has courted Al-Qaeda in Libya to overthrow Gaddafi and now they are doing it in Syria to remove Assad!
If providing material assistance to al-Qaeda is illegal under the National Defence Authorization Act (2012), and Obama and Congress are sending $25 million of aid to al-Qaeda-affiliated Syrian opposition, aren’t Congress and President Obama violating their own law? Should Obama (or at least the Justice Department) not be using “all necessary and appropriate force” including “the power to indefinitely detain” to prevent Obama and Congress from assisting al-Qaeda? Did anyone in Congress or the Obama administration even bother to read the law that they were signing? Do Federal laws no longer apply to lawmakers?
We all know that Jack Blood is not a “good soldier” for the GOP – No surprise that Jack takes Rand Paul to task in the first hour of this broadcast, for his endorsement of NDAA lovin Mitt Romney. Rand says he is going on tour with Mitt to help him get selected (which is a loser) – In HOUR TWO: Jack welcomes back Jeff Gates (NWO insider / www.criminalstate.com)) as we continue with Part 2 of our exclusive USS Liberty Cover-Up info from Thursday. (Advised to hear that show first) Jeff and Jack cover the McCain / LBJ angle, the Lobby angle, and go DEEP down the Rabbit hole to explain NWO “Game Theory” – share this show and PLEASE hit the chip in so we can do more of this. thanks.
Jack scores through this day in history and breaking national and vocal news via www.deadlinelive.info – 2nd hour we are joined with Larry Pinkney of www.blackcommentator.com for a serious beatdown of cousin Barry Obama and the ruins of modern society….
With the stroke of a pen, President Obama signed bill HR 347 into law earlier this month. With that move, Obama made it a felony to express freedom of speech in America. The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act that effortlessly passed the House and the Senate is a law that most Americans don’t know about but could put them behind bars for up to 10 years. The law states it is a prosecutable offense to without lawful authority enter a building or grounds of a special event of national significance or enter a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting. David Seaman, journalist and host of the DL Show, joins us to talk about how, along with the NDAA, HR 347 is detrimental to the First Amendment.