The Freedom of Knowledge, The Power of Thought ©
60 US Senators Commit High Treason in Voting for McCain/Levin Amendment to Defense Spending Bill Allowing
US Citizens To Be Held on Indefinite Detention - at Guantanmo - Based on Suspicion Alone
From Ken Adachi, Editor
November 30, 2011
60 US Senators Commit High Treason in Voting for McCain/Levin Amendment to Defense Spending Bill Allowing US Citizens To Be Held on Indefinite Detention - at Guantanmo - Based on Suspicion Alone (Nov. 30, 2011)
In the youtube video clips seen below, Sen. Rand Paul and Judge Andrew Napolitano explain in simple, plain English the profound TREASON that took place yesterday in the US Senate when the 60 Senators listed below (effectively) voted in FAVOR of retaining an amendment to the current Defense spending bill (National Defense Authorization Act) which would allow US military personnel to enter the home of a US citizen, take that citizen into custody and transport him to the military prison at Guantanamo Bay (or other military detention camps outside of the USA) for an indefinite period of time based on suspicion of being a "terrorist" or an "enemy combatant". No proof, no trial, no judge, and no jury are required for indefinite detention in a military prison under this amendment authored by well recognized NWO sellout/henchmen Sen. John McCain and Sen. Carl Levin.
Some well intentioned web sites are calling for signing online petitions, but online petitions which are meaningless and accomplish nothing politically (other than data mining for its orgnizers). The ONLY petition you want to sign are official RECALL or IMPEACHMENT petions circulated in your state to force a RECALL ELECTION in order to remove these treasonous cretins from office.
Here is the list of 60 US Senators who voted NOT to approve Senator Udall's SUBSTITUTE amendment (SA-1107) which would have removed from the 'authorized' military roundup list any American citizen located on America soil who is merely "suspected" of being a 'terrorist' or an 'enemy combatant,' OR "supportive" of or in some nebulous way, "associated" with said Bad Guys OR their umbrella political organizations. In other words, if you bought a box of cookies from a little girl fundraiser who came to your door and the money ultimatley was processed by or used by some organization that also supported Islamic political organizations labeled 'terrorists' by the State Department, then you just became a 'terrorist' supporter.
By defeating Senator Udall's substitute SA-1107 amendment, the EXISTING wording of Subtitle D, Section 1031 of Title X of Senate Bill S-1867 (sponsored by NWO sellouts Sens. John McCain and Carl Levin) remains intact and part of S-1867.
If this bill becomes law, then ANY American citizen that the President's special committee decides is a "suspect" can be abducted from his home in America in the middle of the night by US military personnel and wisked off to Guantanamo and never be heard from again--and it would all be 'authorized' and legal.
The Traitor's List:
1. Ayotte (R-NH)
2. Barrasso (R-WY)
3. Blunt (R-MO)
4. Boozman (R-AR)
5. Brown (R-MA)
6. Burr (R-NC)
7. Casey (D-PA)
8. Chambliss (R-GA)
9. Coats (R-IN)
10. Coburn (R-OK)
11. Cochran (R-MS)
12. Collins (R-ME)
13. Conrad (D-ND)
14. Corker (R-TN)
15. Cornyn (R-TX)
16. Crapo (R-ID)
17. DeMint (R-SC)
18. Enzi (R-WY)
19. Graham (R-SC)
20. Grassley (R-IA)
21. Hagan (D-NC)
22. Hatch (R-UT)
23. Heller (R-NV)
24. Hoeven (R-ND)
25. Hutchison (R-TX)
26. Inhofe (R-OK)
27. Inouye (D-HI)
28. Isakson (R-GA)
29. Johanns (R-NE)
30. Johnson (R-WI)
31. Kohl (D-WI)
32. Kyl (R-AZ)
33. Landrieu (D-LA)
34. Lee (R-UT)
35. Levin (D-MI)
36. Lieberman (ID-CT)
37. Lugar (R-IN)
38. Manchin (D-WV)
39. McCain (R-AZ)
40. McCaskill (D-MO)
41. McConnell (R-KY)
42. Menendez (D-NJ)
43. Moran (R-KS)
44. Nelson (D-NE)
45. Portman (R-OH)
46. Pryor (D-AR)
47. Reed (D-RI)
48. Risch (R-ID)
49. Roberts (R-KS)
50. Rubio (R-FL)
51. Sessions (R-AL)
52. Shaheen (D-NH)
53. Shelby (R-AL)
54. Snowe (R-ME)
55. Stabenow (D-MI)
56. Thune (R-SD)
57. Toomey (R-PA)
58. Vitter (R-LA)
59. Whitehouse (D-RI)
60. Wicker (R-MS)
These 60 U.S. senators are not loyal Americans, but rather servants of the NWO Beast. These senators have demonstrated that they have no intention of keeping their SWORN oath of office to UPHOLD the U.S. Constitution. This Nazi-inspired McCain/Levin Subtitle D, Section 1031 of this bill BETRAYS a core, founding PRINCIPLE of the U.S. Constitution which REQUIRES that CITIZENS are entitled to DUE PROCESS which includes:
1. EVIDENCE that they are involved in some sort of crime (Habeas corpus)
2. A JUDGE, a courtroom, and a TRIAL to determine guilt or innocence and
3. a JURY to decide on guilt or innocence and sentence of punishment imposed and carried out within the USA .
The McCain/Levin Traitor's amendment wipes out all of these constitutional guarantees with the signing of this single Defense spending bill into law.
The McCain?Levin amendment EXCEEDS the level of treason presented in the Orwellian named Patriot Act of Oct 2001!
These traitors MUST be removed from office and made to pay for their collusion to bring about the destruction of this once Great Land and freedom-enshrined republic.
Copyright 2011 Educate-Yourself.org All Rights Reserved.
Rand Paul on "Indefinite Detention" Provision of Defense Authorization Act : 11/29/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=DWApGqE_T-k (Uploaded by ricthuse on Nov 29, 2011)
Transcription of above video clip.
Rand Paul on "Indefinite Detention" Provision of Defense Authorization Act
November 29, 2011
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWApGqE_T-k&feature=player_embedded 00:13:38
Transcription: December 4, 2011
Transcription by: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Rand Paul: Mr. President, James Madison, the Father of The Constitution, warned, "The means of defense against foreign danger historically had become instruments of tyranny at home." Abraham Lincoln had similar thoughts saying, "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." During war there have always been a struggle to preserve constitutional liberties. During The Civil War, the right of habeas corpus was suspended; newspapers were closed down. Fortunately, these rights were restored after the War.
The discussion now is to suspend certain rights of due process is especially worrisome, given that we are engaged in a war that appears to have no end. Rights given up now cannot be expected to return. So, we do well to contemplate the diminishment of due process, knowing that these rights that we give up now may never be restored.
My well-intentioned colleagues' admonitions in defending provisions of this Defense Bill, say that we should give up certain rights: the right to due process. Their legislation would arm the military with the authority to detain indefinitely, without due process or trial, people suspected of an association with terrorism. These would include American citizens, apprehended on American soil. I want to repeat that. We're talking about people who are merely suspected of terrorism, or suspected of committing a crime, and have been judged by no court. We're talking about American citizens that could be taken from the United States and sent to a camp at GuantanamoBay, and held indefinitely.
This should be alarming to everyone watching this proceeding today, because it puts every single American citizen at risk. There is one thing, and one thing only, that is protecting American citizens, and that's our Constitution - the checks we put on government power. Should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, well, then the terrorists have won.
Detaining citizens without a court trial is not American. In fact, this is an alarming, arbitrary power that is reminiscent of what Egypt did with its Permanent Emergency Law. This Permanent Emergency Law allowed them to detain their own citizens without a court trial. Egyptians became so alarmed at that in the last spring that they overthrew their government. Recently, Justice Scalia affirmed this idea in his dissent in the Hamdi case saying, "Where the government accuses a citizen of waging war against it, our constitutional tradition has been to prosecute him in Federal Court for treason or another crime." Scalia concluded by saying, "The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers, has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the executive." Justice Scalia was, as he often does, following the wisdom of our founding fathers. As Franklin wisely warned, "Those who give up their liberty for security, may wind up with neither." And really, what security does this indefinite detention of Americans give us?
The first in flawed premise, both here and in the badly misnamed Patriot Act, is that our pre-9/11 police powers were insufficient to stop terrorism. This is simply not borne out by the facts. Congress long ago made it a crime to provide or conspire to provide material assistance to Al Qaeda or other foreign terrorist organizations. Material assistance includes virtually anything of value - legal / political advise, education, books, newspapers, lodging, or otherwise. The Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of this sweeping prohibition.
We have laws on the books that can prosecute terrorists before they commit acts of terrorism. Al Qaeda adherents may be detained, prosecuted, and convicted for conspiring to violate the material assistance prohibition. In fact, we've already done this. José Padilla, for instance, was convicted and sentenced to 17 years in prison for conspiring to provide material assistance to Al Qaeda. The criminal law does require and can prevent crimes from occurring before they do occur. Indeed, conspiracy laws and prosecutions in civilian courts have been routinely invoked after 9/11 to thwart embryonic international terrorism. In fact, from the Bush administration, Michael Chertoff, then Head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division, and later Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, testified shortly after 9/11. He underscored, "The history of this government in prosecuting terrorists in domestic courts has been one of unmitigated success, and one in which the judges have done a superb job of managing the courtroom and not compromising our concerns about security, and our concern about classified information." We can prosecute terrorists in our courts, and have done so.
It's a wonderful thing about our country - is that even the most despicable criminal, murderer, rapist, terrorist - our court systems do work. We can have constitution liberty and prosecute terrorists. There is no evidence that the criminal justice procedures have frustrated intelligence collection about international terrorism. Suspected terrorists have repeatedly waived both the right to an attorney and the right to silence. Additionally, Miranda Warnings are not required at all when the purpose of the interrogation is public safety.
The authors of this Bill errantly maintain that the Bill would not enlarge the universe of detainees - people held indefinitely. I believe this is simply not the case. The current authorization for the use of military force confines the universe to persons implicated in 9/11, or who harbored those who were. This new detainee provision will expand the universe to include any person said to be part of, or substantially supportive of Al Qaeda or Taliban. But remember, this is not someone who's been concluded at trial to be part of Al Qaeda; this is someone who is suspected.
If you were just suspect in our country, you were usually accorded due process. If you go to court, you're not automatically guilty. You are accused of a crime. But now we're saying, "Someone accused of a crime could be taken from America's soil. An American citizen accused of a crime - a suspect of a crime - could be taken to GuantanamoBay." These terms are dangerously vague. More than a decade after 9/11, the military has been unable to define the earmarks of membership in, or affiliation to, either Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations. It's an accusation and sometimes difficult to prove. Some say that to prevent another 9/11 attack, we must fight terrorism with a war mentality and not treat potential attackers as criminals. For combatants captured on the battlefield, I agree. But these are people captured or detained in America - American citizens.
9/11 didn't succeed because we granted terrorists due process. In fact, 9/11 did not succeed because Al Qaeda was so formidable, but because of human error. The Defense Department withheld intelligence from the FBI. No warrants were denied; the warrants weren't even requested. The FBI failed to act on repeated pleas from its field agents, who were in possession of a laptop that may well have had information that may have prevented 9/11. But no judge ever turned down a warrant. Our criminal system didn't fail. No one ever asked for a warrant to look at Moussaoui's computer in August, a month before 9/11. These aren't failures of our laws. These are not failures of our Constitution. These are not reasons we should scrap our Constitution and simply send people accused of terrorism to Guantanamo Bay - American citizens. These are failures of imperfect men and women in bloated bureaucracies. No amount of liberty sacrificed at the altar of the state will ever change that.
A full accounting of our human failures by 9/11 Commission has proven that enhanced cooperation between law enforcement and the intelligence community - not military action or not giving up our liberty at home - is the key to thwarting international terrorism. We should not have to sacrifice our liberty to be safe. We cannot allow the rules to change to fit the whims of those in power. The rules / the binding chains of The Constitution were written, so that it didn't matter who was in power. In fact, they were written to protect us and our rights from those who hold power with good intentions. We are not governed by saints or angels. Occasionally, we will elect people, and there have been times in history when those who come into power are not angels. That's why we have laws and rules that restrain what the government can do. That's why we have laws that protect you to say you're innocent until proven guilty. That's why we have laws that say you should have a trial before a judge and a jury of your peers, before you're sent off to some prison indefinitely.
Finally, the detainee provisions of the Defense Authorization Bill do another grave harm to freedom. They imply perpetual war for the first time in the history of the United States. No benchmarks are established that would ever terminate the conflict with Al Qaeda, Taliban, or other foreign terrorists organizations. In fact, this Bill explicitly says that no part of this Bill is to imply any restriction on the authorization of force. When will the wars ever end? When will these provisions end? No congressional views allowed or imagined. No victory is defined. No peace is possible if victory is made impossible by definition. To disavow the idea that the exclusive congressional power to declare war somehow allows the President to continue war forever at whim, I will offer an Amendment to this Bill that will de-authorize the war in Iraq.
We're bringing the troops home in January. Is there any reason why we should have an open-ended commitment to war in Iraq, when the war is ending? If we need to go to war in Iraq again, we should debate on it and vote on it. It's an important enough matter that we should not have an open-ended commitment to war in Iraq.
The use of military force must begin in Congress. Our founding fathers separated those powers and said that Congress has the power to declare war. And it's a precious and important power. We shouldn't give that up to the President. We shouldn’t allow the President to unilaterally engage in war. Congress should not be ignored or an afterthought of these matters, and must reclaim its constitutional duties. These are important points of fact.
Know good and well that some day there could be a government in power that is shipping its citizens off for disagreements. There are laws on the books now that characterize who might be a terrorist: someone missing fingers on their hands is a suspect, according to the Department of Justice / someone who has guns / someone who has ammunition that is weatherproofed / someone who has more than 7 days of food in their house can be considered a potential terrorist. If you are suspected by these activities, do you want to have the government have the ability to send you to GuantanamoBay for indefinite detention? A suspect. We're not talking about someone who has been tried and found guilty. We're talking about someone suspected of activities. But some of the things that make you suspicious of terrorism are having food / having more than 7 days of food / missing fingers on your hand / having ammunition / having weatherproofed ammunition / having several guns at your house. Is that enough? Are you willing to sacrifice your freedom for liberty?
I would argue that we should strike these detainee provisions from this Bill, because we are giving up our liberty. We're giving up our constitutional right to have due process before we're sent to a prison. This is very important. I think this is a constitutional liberty we should not look at and blithely sign away to the executive power or to the military. So, I would call for support of the Amendment that will strike the provisions on keeping detainees indefinitely; particularly, the fact that we could now, for the first time, send American citizens to prisons abroad. I think that is a grave danger to our constitutional liberty, and I advise a vote to strike these provisions from the Bill.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back my time.
Rand Paul Aims to Kill "Indefinite Detention" Provision of Controversial Bill
Head of Japanese American Citizens League warns that bill has echoes of World War II-style internment without charge.
With the bill expected to be up for a vote within 48 hours, Senator Rand Paul has offered an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that will kill a provision allowing the military to detain individuals, including American citizens, without trial or due process.
The "indefinite detention" sections of the NDAA bill would turn the whole of the United States into a "battlefield" and hand the executive branch the power to have the military arrest U.S. citizens and hold them without trial.
The provision is merely an update to the "parallel legal system" had been in place under the auspices of the war on terror for over a decade, "In which terrorism suspects — U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike — may be investigated, jailed, interrogated, tried and punished without legal protections guaranteed by the ordinary system," as the Washington Post reported in December 2002.
In attempt to kill the indefinite detention provision of the legislation, Senator Rand Paul aims to strike Section 1031 from the bill, which reads as follows.
"Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force...includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons...Detention under the law of war without trial".
The amendment is seen as having more teeth than a change offered by Colorado Senator Mark Udall which the ACLU has urged voters to support. "There are other similar Amendments too, however none of them completely eliminate the Constitutionally offensive section," reports the Tennessee Campaign for Liberty website.
Writing in the Washington Post today, Udall emphasizes the fact that the bill does affect American citizens.
"The provisions would require the military to dedicate a significant number of personnel to capturing and holding terrorism suspects — in some cases indefinitely — even those apprehended on U.S. soil. And they authorize the military to do so regardless of an accused terrorist's citizenship, even if he or she is an American captured in a U.S. city," writes Udall.
Republican Congressman Justin Amash also warned that the bill had been "carefully crafted to mislead the public," in suggesting that the indefinite detention provision didn't apply to American citizens when it clearly does.
"Note that it does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary," Amash wrote on his Facebook page.
As we documented yesterday, every single piece of legislation passed in the name of catching terrorists has been used against American citizens on countless occasions.
In an op-ed for the SIlicon Valley Mercury News, S. Floyd Mori, national executive director of the Japanese American Citizens League, warns that the legislation would create the legal framework for internment without trial on a similar scale to how Japanese-Americans were held in concentration camps during World War II.
"Indefinite detentions based on fear-driven and unlawfully substantiated national security grounds, where individuals are neither duly charged nor fairly tried, violate the essence of U.S. law and the most fundamental values upon which this country was built," he writes.
The National Defense Authorization Act is set for a procedural vote at midday on Wednesday.
Judge Andrew Napolitano Explains to Brain-Dead Fox Anchor Why the McCain/Levin Amendment is Blatantly Unconstitutional
Battlefield: America - Have the Terrorists Won? (Rand Paul Interviewed by Judge Napolitano)
Transcript of above video clip
Battlefield: America - Have the Terrorists Won?
~ Rand Paul Interviewed by Judge Napolitano ~
on Freedom Watch November 29, 2011
Audio: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRqyQ5wnjw8&feature=player_embedded 00:05:19
Transcription date: December 5, 2011
Transcribed by: <email@example.com>
Senator Rand Paul: Under the provisions, would it be possible that an American citizen then could be declared an enemy combatant and sent to GuantanamoBay and detained indefinitely?
Senator John McCain: I think that as long as that individual, no matter who they are, if they pose a threat to the security of the United States of America should not be allowed to continue that threat.
Judge Andrew Napolitano: To continue that threat… I'm infuriated by Senator McCain's nonsensical and unconstitutional answer. I'm sure our next guest is, too. Senator Rand Paul was questioning Senator McCain on our top story tonight. A Bill written in secret by Senator McCain and Senator Carl Levin that would give the U.S. military and non-civilian law enforcement agencies the ability to arrest anyone, and hold that person indefinitely, even if that person is an American arrested on American soil. Here to discuss this frustrating development is Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul. Before we get into the politics of who voted for it and who voted against it, what's your take on what's going on here? I mean, everybody in the Senate took an oath to uphold The Constitution, which says, "No person" - it doesn't even say no American, it says, "No person shall be denied life, liberty or property without due process of law." And here they go ahead and vote for legislation that denies it.
Rand Paul: Well, you know we had a discussion about this among some Republicans at lunch, and one of the Republican Senators read from The Constitution and pointed out all the places where you are guaranteed a trial by a jury / while you are guaranteed a speedy trial / while you're guaranteed habeas corpus / you're guaranteed all these rights. And it does strike me as perplexing that anyone could vote to send an American citizen, who's been accused of a crime, to a detention center in a foreign land without due process - really is beyond me.
Napolitano: Without asking you to share confidential conversations, what justification did these people give for this? They all took - I'm talking about your fellow Republicans - I think only Senator Kirk from Illinois joined you. Even Mike Lee voted for this - a shocking development, which he and I will discuss on another show. But what are the Republicans trying to accomplish when they defy The Constitution, which they took an oath to uphold?
Rand Paul: Well, here's what most of them argued… Most of them argue that Hamdi and Querin, two Supreme Court cases, have justified holding U.S. citizens as enemy combatants. They also argue that the Padilla case did, but that wasn't a Supreme Court case. I guess my point is, is that I agreed with Scalia, who was the dissent in the Hamdi case and who said that really high treason has been tried in our courts usually, and it is the exception to ever give up our rights. It's happened during war. But my point about this is, this is a world without end. I'm afraid of giving up the right to trial by jury and hoping that someday they will declare an end to this war, and they'll give back the right to trial by jury. It really concerns me.
Napolitano: It's very interesting how people can twist and torture language. Hamdi was a case lost by the Bush administration, in which Justice O'Connor said, "Everybody's entitled to a trial". And Querin was a case lost by the Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration, which said, "Even a German saboteur who was born in the United States of America was captured trying to blow up munitions plants during World War II was entitled to a trial". But here you have colleagues of yours - I know this isn't the law yet; the vote earlier today was on a procedural amendment, which indicates how this is likely to turn up - colleagues of yours, who can read The Constitution as you do, basically throwing up their arms and saying, "Well, since Presidents before Obama have gotten away with this, we might as well write it into the law, and let him and successors do so lawfully what the other Presidents took a chance on doing."
Rand Paul: Well, their other argument is that there will be one procedural hurdle. And the procedural hurdle is that there will be a habeas, or you have to present the body the judge has to rule on, whether or not the person can be held. But my argument to them was that to me is the beginning of due process. That's not the end of due process. To have a habeas hearing before a judge to see if you can hold a prisoner is the beginning of due process, but that's not all of due process. Due process involves a jury trial, a judge, legal help on both sides of the equation, and a conclusion. So, there's much more than just a habeas hearing.
Rand Paul: But they claim that having a habeas hearing is enough. But the problem is, is then you hold somebody after one hearing, you can hold them indefinitely. Their argument also is they say, "Well, 27% of the prisoners we've released from Guantanamo went back into combat." But my response to them was, "Those 27% that were released weren't released because of due process. They were released because some generals and the administration decided to let them go, and it had nothing to do with due process in letting them go."
Napolitano: Got it. Got it.
Rand Paul: In fact, due process, we've convicted several people in the United States through due process who were terrorists.
Napolitano: Interesting. I wonder how the American people will feel when they see troops on the streets on a regular basis. Something no one now living has seen since it ended the last time in 1876. Senator Paul, it's a pleasure, even when we discuss these unpleasant matters. Thanks for joining us.
Alex Jones Weighs in on the Naked Tyranny of the McCain/Levin Indefinite Detention Amendment
Transcript of above video clip with Alex Jones
While the Public Sleeps, An Unprecedented Act of Treason
Occurred in the U.S. Senate on November 29, 2011
Fascist Police State - Military Martial Law
Death of Posse Comitatus Tyranny
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=l7-FIDxXIB0 00:14:14
RT America Reporter Kristine Frazao in Washington, DC, Interviews Alex Jones in Austin, Texas
MilitaryState of Mind
Transcription: December 2, 2011
Transcription by: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Reporter Kristine Frazao: Well, let's begin this afternoon with something U.S. lawmakers are cooking up as we speak. It's a bill in the U.S. Senate called the National Defense Authorization Act, and may be voted on as soon as tomorrow. But with most bills, it is chocked full of flowery language about protecting the homeland and giving he military the tools they need to do their job. But the bill also does something unprecedented. It gives the President - this one and the next ones - the authority to indefinitely imprison people, without charge or trial, both in other countries and here in the United States. But don't take my word for it. Take a look at this… Here is text of the Senate Bill 1867: Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pending disposition under the law of war. Alright, not exactly simple language here. So, why don't I play something for you from one of the bill's backers, Senator Lindsey Graham from South Carolina. This is what he said on the Senate floor a few weeks ago:
Senator Lindsey Graham: 1032, the Military Custody Provision, which has waivers and a lot of flexibility, doesn't apply to American citizens. 1031, the Statement of Authority to Detain does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.
Kristine: The battlefield, says Senator Graham, is right here in your front yard and mine. And he says American citizens, if they are suspects - suspects - well, that they should be able to be detained and held without charge. Why? Well, in the name of information gathering, it seems.
Senator Kelly Ayotte: We're simply saying that you have the option to make sure that you can put intelligence gathering as the top priority.
Kristine: Now, this isn't just Republicans. The bill sponsors are Republican Senator John McCain and Democratic Senator Carl Levin, who brings up a situation in which a member of Al Qaeda gets onto U.S. soil and attacks a military base. Senator Levin wants to make sure that that person is able to be detained by the military in that situation. That's the reason. Now, I should mention President Obama has threatened to veto the bill if the indefinite detention without charge or trial provisions are not removed. But an amendment by Senators Mark Udall and Jim Webb to strip those provisions from the bill just failed on the Senate floor just moments ago. So, what is going on here? Where's all that talk about sticking to The Constitution?
It's a question radio host, Alex Jones, for one, is asking. So, we want to talk to him about it. Hey Alex, there's a lot of talk about, you know, there's a lot of talk about this, but there's very few people talking about it, as well, in the mainstream media. Now, I'll get to the lack of coverage on the mainstream media in a second, but let's just get to the bill itself. What do you make of this?
Alex Jones: Well, Kristine, there's a story inside of this story. I, for 16 years or more, have been pointing out that there is an open plan to start using the U.S. military on the streets of America. And in the MIAC and Homeland Security reports that law enforcement gave me over 3 years ago, it states that none of this has to do with Al Qaeda. It's all about returning vets, gun owners, Libertarians, Conservatives, Anti-War Activists, who are listed as terrorists in these databases. So, that's in the news today. So the bill itself is incredibly egregious, but it just expands upon the Military Commissions Act and other things, where they now kill you as citizens abroad, and say they will kill them domestically. So, they're setting that precedent always claiming, "Oh well, it's for Al Qaeda, 'cause they're so scary." But when you get into the meat and potatoes, they want to use this against the American people. And just a few years ago they would say, "This is preposterous! We don't want to use the army and marines against the American people. Why that's tyranny. That's a third-world country. That's martial law." Now, they're like, "Well yes, we want to keep you safe from Al Qaeda." But it's in The London Telegraph and all over the news that Al Qaeda, under NATO control, has been given Libya / is now being sent to Syria / was used, of course, in the 80's against the Russians / used against the Serbs in the 90's. I mean, this is a joke. Al Qaeda is the boogieman they use to do this, but the whole thing is pointed at the American people. But here's the key: When we started reporting this last week, when they brought this bill up, it has a section saying, Americans are exempt, but it has another section saying, unless we say so. So, it's got the fine print.
And then, I had noticed all these IP addresses hitting our article within minutes of it going up, which they don't even hide it. It goes back to military bases and PR firms. They were ready, saying I was a liar and INFOWARS.com was lying, using the lying section. And in fact, it was in The Grand Rapids Press, Congressman Justin Amash said, - quote: "It's carefully crafted to mislead the public." They had all the warmongering neocons and others come out in the last week and say, "It's not in there. It's not true. It doesn't affect citizens.
Kristine: A few things, Alex, a few things that you want that you mentioned, because you brought up a lot of good points here. One thing you said, you said, "A few years ago, people would find something like this outrageous / preposterous." It is surprising on one level today - but this treatment of being detained, held without charge, even tortured, has already happened to an American citizen on American soil - Private First Class Bradley Manning, accused of leaking those classified documents to the whistle blowing website, WikiLeaks. So, if this is already being done, what's the point of having Congress vote on it?
Alex: Well, they want to say, "It's the law" - like Hitler passed laws saying he could round up groups he wanted. We had laws in this country saying blacks weren't human beings. It doesn't mean it's right. Tyrants always want to say they have the law on their side, but as Marbury vs. Madison Supreme Court Case states, "Anything that is abhorrent to common law, The Constitution, or organic law is null and void." They could pass a law tomorrow saying, "All children with black hair have to show up at the local government building to become slaves". I mean, it's a fraud. We have the right to resist that.
And the Military Industrial Complex, owned by the big banks, has hijacked America. I keep explaining this to people. And now, it doesn't just want to dominate the third world or the Middle East or Asia, or encircle other countries in Europe. It wants to dominate this country. And the Military Industrial Complex is a bunch of offshore corporations. They run the red light cameras. They run the federalization of the local police. They're just occupying America through NORTHCOM. They set it all up for this. Clinton, Bush, Obama - it's all just continuing.
And you're right, Obama is saying he will veto this, because it's getting attention. But he's already gone along with saying they can secretly arrest and torture. And it says in here you can be grabbed, and no one ever knows where you go forever. I mean, this is literally right out of Stalin, Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, Pol Pot type stuff. This is right out of East Germany / right out of Nazi Germany. This is 100% naked, classical, 1984, in-your-face tyranny, and they sit there and waddle around up there - Congress - it's come out that most of these members who have a 9% approval rating, know the American people are awake to them. They say it's legal that they are allowed to insider trade and give government contracts and pass bills for companies their wives and husbands own. They sit up there - most of them blackmail criminals - and say, "We're allowed to insider trade" (which is a felony)…
Kristine: Alright, Alex. I mean, certainly that was another big story that we talked about here on RT and really important to talk about, but I really want to stick to this, especially because…
Alex: I'm saying, "They're crooks! They're crooks that want a military to protect their criminal activity." I'm sorry.
Kristine: That's okay. I want to talk about this specifically and the coverage of it. As we said, "This is happening right now. Certainly Congress and what lawmakers is working on is a priority for much of the mainstream media: CNN, MSNBC, FOX. They have congressional correspondents. Why haven't we seen this covered?
Alex: Because it's a Pentagon-run psyop and the American people are the enemy. America's been hijacked, and they - listen - we had Pentagon Department of Defense spammers hit our site when this went up within minutes. They were waiting with the part of the bill that says you're exempt in that carefully crafted deception that congressmen talked about to mislead the public. They were waiting, hitting us within 120 seconds, okay? So, first they said, "It doesn't exist". Now that it's come out, they're saying, "Okay, it's good for you" because they don't want this debate to go forward. They want to be able to go in and tell the troops - the carefully chosen cadres - "Now you're ready to operate in America".
Now listen, they've been operating for 20 years secretly in police uniform. I've interviewed the people. They've been doing gun confiscation drills that I've been to. I've literally had - if I told you the stories - it's in my Police State films. It's like a movie. There is a giant, secret government program that now wants to uncloak. It's already here.
Kristine: Let's broaden this, too, a bit, Alex. I want to show you on the cover of TIME Magazine this week. But first I'm going to show you the cover of TIME in Europe and Asia and in South Pacific. This basically shows a fighter wearing a gas mask in a village still very much in the midst of chaos. And it asks the question (I know it's hard to read, but it says), "Are free elections - and the promise of an Arab Spring - at risk?" And under the larger title of REVOLUTION REDUX. Well, now I want to show you this week's cover of TIME here in the U.S. It basically says why ANXIETY is good for you. Hopefully, you can see this.
Everywhere else in the world they're talking about the Arab Spring. They're showing a picture of revolution / of chaos on the streets. And here we have a little cartoon guy tying a little piece of yarn under the headline: Why ANXIETY Is Good For You. Let's talk about that in terms of the mainstream media and the coverage of bills and things that Washington lawmakers are working on right now that are just getting no attention.
Alex: Well, you're right. I mean, the corporate press New World Order media 50 years ago the U.S. was number one in education / number one in being informed. Now, we are the least informed of the industrialized world by design. And we are spoon-fed propaganda. We're not told how the rest of the world sees us. And they try to keep us in this cocoon. And so, I praise RT for covering this. I mean literally, this is right out of 1933 Germany with Hitler saying, "The Reichstag is going to attack. I can indefinitely arrest and detain whoever I want". I mean, this is 100% nightmare that they would be openly doing this, but they're only able to get away with this, because as you pointed out, FOX, CNN and the rest of them won't cover it. And the few little mentions are, "Yeah, they're going to secretly arrest you to keep you safe".
I mean, my God! Let's say terrorism was real and not manufactured most of it. I'm a thousand times more scared of a big, giant Military Industrial Complex with snatch-and-grab teams that can just disappear people, which we know they've been beta-testing at the G-20 in Pittsburg. They would have military grab folks off the street, put them in cars. I later learned they were actors, but they would do it in front of the media to test it, and to see what the public did. And I learned in London / I learned in Toronto / I learned in other places the G-20 test this. They are scientifically studying us and seeing if they can get away with this; staging snatch-and-grabs in front of news cameras. And then the news is like not even covering it. And they're like, Okay, the media's going to let us pull up and grab peaceful people and throw them in black vans. Let's do it for real. This is scientific psyop. We're under attack as I told you - it's not a joke. May Day! May Day! I wish people would have done this in Germany in the 1930's. We are in a Red Level Crisis! The people that have seized our government are preparing to launch World War III in the Middle East if their test balloons are successful.
Kristine: Well, Alex, I just want to wrap this segment up with one final question about the specific - the bill that’s taking place, 1867 in Congress, the National Defense Authorization Act. You said that people in the higher ups in the military in government, that they want to try to hide this. But the fact is, you can't hide a bill that's in Congress. You go on the Internet and you can find the exact text of the bill. How are they going to hide it? How do you see this playing out in terms of…?
Alex: Alright. They've tried a couple of things. Sure, sure. First, they hit everybody: the ACLU, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, with "No, it doesn't do that. No, no. It doesn’t arrest citizens." I mean, you're not even supposed to have the military involved domestically. And now they're not just going to arrest you - you're going to disappear. They said they could torture you in the accompanying legislation they've already passed - going to the literal black hole. And so first, they run the psyop of it doesn't exist. When we force the fact that it exists, they just let the alternative media - the real media - cover it, and hope people don't wake up to it, so they can slip it through, and then incrementally implement. And so that's the plan.
Listen, from Alabama to California I have the local news articles, from Iowa to Tennessee, going back at least 5 years. Every week, they have regular army and marines (I have video) at checkpoints pulling families out of their cars. You pull up with your wife and children and there are state police with marines acting like you're terrorists, grabbing you out of the car and searching you. It's all about breaking our will / training us to accept this. This has already been going on. Just like Bush was spying without warrants, for many years before it came out, it was illegal. They just have Congress pass a law saying, "No more warrants needed in America". They're already doing this.
Kristine: Alright. We will certainly keep our eyes on this. But we do appreciate you weighing in and for really being focused in on the story - radio host, Alex Jones in Austin, Texas.
Alex: Thank you, Kristine.
Judge Andrew Napolitano and Col Douglas Macgregor Discuss the Assault on the Constitution with the McCain/Levin Aamendment
[Editor's Note: Notice the choice of wording in the title and the body of the the article seen below which puts a deceptive, business-as-usual SPIN on the act of treason commited yesterday in the US Snate by 61 NWO sellouts. For instance, this article talks about the amendment being "defeated," however, the "amendment" that was "defeated" was a newly introduced amendment to REMOVE the McCain/Levin 'amendment' that is already PART of the Defense spending bill, S-1867. Notice the caustic comments from readers posted at the bottom of this article, despite the attempt by author Josiah Ryan to make the story appear to be just another Democrat vs Republican squabble. . ..Ken Adachi].
Senate rejects effort to ease terrorist detainee policy in defense bill
By Josiah Ryan - 11/29/11
The Senate rejected an amendment on Tuesday that would have removed a provision from the pending Defense spending bill to toughen U.S. policy towards suspected terrorists captured on the battlefield or on the home front.
The amendment, defeated 37-61, would have struck [removed] a section of the spending bill that authorizes the president to use “all necessary and appropriate force” to detain people suspected of terrorism and instead would have implemented a timeline to allow further hearings and opportunities for the military to make recommendations on how detainee policy ought to change. Prior to the vote, the amendment's author, Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), argued that military and law enforcement professionals ought to be given a louder voice in the deliberation over a policy that could so drastically affect the execution of their duties.
"We are ignoring the advice and the input of the director of the FBI, the director of the intelligence community, the attorney general of the United States, the Secretary of Defense and the White House," said Udall. “My amendment would take out these provisions, and give us in the congress an opportunity to take a hard look at the needs of our counterterrorism professionals, and respond in a measured way that reflects the input of those who are actually fighting our enemies,” Udall had said on the Senate floor. “The secretary of Defense is warning us that we may be making mistakes that will hurt our capacity to fight terrorism at home and abroad.”
Udall also said he feared the provision could apply to U.S. citizens, which he said would be an “unprecedented threat to our constitutional liberties.” But Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Carl Levin (D-Mich.) [traitor] fired back, addressing concerns voiced throughout the day by both progressives and liberals in the Senate that the law would allow American citizens to be detained without a civilian trial.
“The Supreme Court has recently ruled there is no bar to the United States holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant,” said Levin.
“This is the Supreme Court speaking.“ Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) [traitor] , said that any U.S. citizen suspected of aiding al Qaeda would be entitled to a trial. “The idea that an American citizen helping al Qaeda doesn’t get due process is just a lie,” Graham said.
The White House had opposed the detainee language, describing it as an effort to handcuff the administration's ability to develop their own policies on the handling of suspected terrorists. “The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects,” the White House said in a Nov. 17 release. “This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President’s authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals.”
Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Jim Webb (Va.) supported Udall's amendment, however there was strong opposition from a bipartisan group of senators who said that the detainee language at issues had already been approved in committee.
Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) [Zionist-sponsored traitor] and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) [traitor] both spoke in favor of the detainee language.
Pete Kasperowicz contributed.
Selected Reader Comments
BY fly on 11/29/2011 at 16:15
Amazing how easy they are taking our rights away. Terrorism, or the assumed threat, has somehow convince people that hundreds of years of freedom are no longer necessary in the name of protection.
BY Red on 11/29/2011 at 16:22
Senator Levin is somehow reassured by the present right wing US Supreme Court that any American can be detained indefinitely by the Government. It says volumes about Levin, and continues the trampling of what we all thought were constitutional rights. I'm leaving the US and will revoke my citizenship ASAP.
BY phil on 11/29/2011 at 16:30
SCOTUS [Supreme Court of the United States] is a bunch of lunatics who have helped big business and Congress strip away what's left of our constitutional rights. Citizens United and the fact the Congress has declared themselves immune from prosecution for insider trading should tell you exactly what the entire US government is doing.
|All information posted on this web site is the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer of your choice for medical care and advice.|