OpEd: Jack
Hey Harry Reid...you are only popular in Las Vegas with the Unions and Illegal Aliens...your time is numbered in Nevada!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by
Tim Brown
With the recent passage by Congress of the
2013 National Defense Authorization Act, soon to be signed into law by Barack Obama, and existence of the
2012 NDAA law,
many states have sought nullification of NDAA. Nevada is now set to
put forth it’s own anti-NDAA bill, BDR 728. On December 19, the Nevada
chapters of the People Against the National Defense Authorization Act
(PANDA)
announced the introduction of the bill. The bill is sponsored by Nevada State Senator
Don Gustavson and will be presented to lawmakers in February when the legislature reconvenes.
Christopher Corbett, Nevada state coordinator for PANDA, said in a
statement that announced the introduction of the bill, which is titled
“The Nevada Liberty Preservation Act”:
I appreciate the community support backing up our efforts
and the courage of those members of our governing bodies who are
willing to actively protect the constitutional rights of their
constituents. We need to restore the Constitutionally protected right to
due process for every American.
The 2012 version of NDAA was signed into law quietly on New Year’s Eve
last year and it is expected that the recently passed NDAA bill will be
signed in a similar manner. Major media outlets have yet to deal with
this issue so it’s up to the rest of us to share the information of what the federal government is doing through legislation.
They are openly violating the Constitution of the United States and
indicating that America has become a battlefield and that each one of us
is a potential terrorist, not because they can prove such in a court of
law, but because they simply say so. The NDAA then provides for those
individuals, including American citizens to be denied due process, which
is a Constitutionally protected right under the Sixth Amendment.
The 2012 NDAA, which has not been repealed, authorizes individuals to
be indefinitely detained without charge or trial simply on the
accusation that they may be tied to terrorists or be one themselves.
PANDA’s Nevada chapter claims the 2012 NDAA’s Sections 1021 & 1022
“violates at least 23 Articles of and Amendments to both the US and
Nevada Constitutions.”
Some Congressmen attempted to thwart this year’s NDAA bill.
Representatives Adam Smith (D-Washington) and Justin Amash (R-Michigan)
put for an
amendment to remove the indefinite de, which was
shamefully rejected by a vote of 238-182.
Amash passionately stated during the House debate on the amendment,
“The frightening thing here is that the government is claiming the power
under the Afghanistan authorization for use of military force as a
justification for entering American homes to grab people, indefinitely
detain them and not give them a charge or trial.”
Cully Stimson, writing for the Heritage Foundation, called the
Smith-Amash Amendment “Dangerous policy” saying, “The Smith–Amash
amendment would force the government to send any al-Qaeda member
captured in the United States directly to federal court. If this
amendment becomes law, it would limit a President’s flexibility and take
off the table lawful military detention and lawful interrogation for
intelligence purposes. For these and other reasons, the proposal is
unwise.”
So while there continue to be people like Stimson who don’t want to
follow the rule of law, our Constitution, then we are all at risk, for
Section 1021 goes far beyond “being a member of al-Qaeda.” It states
that Congress affirms the authority of the President to use all
appropriate military force according to the “laws of war.” The problem
here is that there has not been a Constitutionally declared war in
America. Therefore, the entire argument is bogus. Dealing with those
on the battlefield is one thing. Dealing with those who commit crimes
in America is something else, no matter who they are affiliated with and
the last time I checked, the Sixth Amendment applies to all those on
U.S. soil.
In fact, this issue of indefinite detention was
struck down earlier in the year by a U.S district court judge, but then
resurrected back to life
within 24 hours by New York federal judge Raymond Lohier, and this was
after the Obama administration petitioned for it, even after Obama first
claimed he would never sign the bill into law because of the provision
of “indefinite detention.”
The Nevada chapters of PANDA have not only supported this at the
state level but have also pushed for similiar nullification at the local
level for the
Washoe County Commission and the
Reno City Council.
No comments:
Post a Comment