New Media for Alaska's Patriotic Voices
The Oathkeepers and multiple other patriot groups nationwide have joined together to fight the offending provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (2012). This "New American" coalition brings together an estimated 90 million Americans to protest and bring forward public awareness. Readers are invited to go to the Oathkeepers website for additional news, information, and sign up.
In effect, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 provisions propose to selectively deny the privilege of habeas corpus in the absence of an armed and organized rebellion (such as the Civil War) on a case-by-case basis and to otherwise suspend Due Process and detain people merely on the suspicion that they have or may have committed undefined "belligerent acts" against the government.
This step-by-step analysis is included in the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus being supported by senior members of the APN Network and Gas for Alaskans. Take the time to read through this and you will be "Shinola Proof" on the issues:
NDAA ---Section by Section:
"§1021: (a) 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.
The 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) adopted after the September 11th attacks granted these powers to the President on an “emergency basis”---which is in itself a fraudulent excuse and convention. These provisions codify these blatant contractual infringements as permanent fixtures of law.
(b) . . A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
This provision does not exempt U.S. citizens or legal aliens within U.S. territory. “Disposition under the law of war” is a vague and varied thing:
c) . . The disposition of a person under the law of war . . may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. . .
Clearly, the federal government can detain anyone charged under these provisions “without trial until the end of the hostilities.” Other dispositions “under the law of war,” including civilian trial, are possible but this law does not require those other dispositions.
The President or his Administration can simply decide to detain you “without trial until the end of hostilities” whenever that is. Considering that the “hostilities” between Muslim, Christians, and Jews have been going on since 642 AD, Petitioners have a right to be concerned.
(d) . . . Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
Unfortunately, the Obama Administration maintains that the AUMF always authorized rounding up citizen-suspects and holding them without trial.
(e) . . . Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
Unfortunately again, there are no Supreme Court decisions guaranteeing the full measure of habeas corpus protection to citizens or legal aliens accused of “belligerent acts” within our borders. Here are the principal Supreme Court decisions the law preserves:
(1) A post-Civil War case (Ex Parte Milligan) saying a citizen non-combatant imprisoned outside the theater of war is entitled to habeas corpus, which is useless, because these provisions apply to people who are accused of being combatants.
(2) The World War II-era Quirin decision that permitted President Roosevelt to detain, try in a secret military hearing, and execute a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. territory and accused of being a German spy. All this does is show that we have ugly precedents for similarly unlawful measures in the past.
(3) The 2004 Hamdi case, which says that a U.S. citizen captured bearing arms in the war theater is NOT entitled to habeas corpus. No protection offered here.
(4) The 2008 Boumedienne decision, which held that alien Guantanamo detainees are entitled to habeas corpus and a civilian hearing to show that they were non-combatants.
None of these prior Supreme Court decisions address the habeas corpus rights of a U.S. citizen or legal alien apprehended within the U.S. and charged with being an enemy combatant.
There is no “existing law” or “authorities” that are “preserved” that offer any protection whatsoever.
§ 1022: (b) (1) . . . The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) . . . The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
All this says is that the Administration is not required to keep a U.S. citizen or legal resident alien in indefinite military custody. It does not in any way prevent the Administration from doing so.
Despite all the fine words seemingly to the contrary, these provisions say what they say, do what they do, and they cannot be glossed over or be presumed to be less offensive or less dangerous than they manifestly are."
Many of you have already contracted your Congressman and Senators, and many of you have received semi-indignant responses to the effect that the members of your Congressional Delegation are not in favor of indefinitely detaining American Citizens on American soil without recourse to due process and merely upon the suspicion that they may have committed undefined "belligerent acts" against the government.
Oh. Our bad. They aren't in favor?
Then why did Don Young, Lisa Murkowski, and Mark Begich vote FOR these provisions?
Maybe it is time to write a second letter and send this analysis along.