|
National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA 2012) - H.R.1540
page last updated: 03/08/2012 - 04:30pm CST.
Despite grass-roots opposition and well-expressed reservations of high-level officials, the President signed H.R. 1540 (NDAA 2012) into law
on 12/31/2011 and simultaneously issued this signing statement.
Unfortunately what all that means to the jaded is that this administration—like those before it and
those to come later—will act with impunity in doing whatever it believes it must do to maintain the status quo while achieving sole
core business goals of self-aggrandizement and expansion—irrespective of losses to individual rights be they civil or human.
Daniel Ellsberg likely
would not have survived this bill and Julian Assange had best not re-enter Sweden only to be whisked stateside.
Many individuals and organizations, including both the ACLU and Amnesty International, question the wisdom of NDAA 2012 legislation and
supported presidential veto.
Some members of Congress including presidential candidate Ron Paul issued warnings at least as stern
as those of the ACLU and Amnesty International.
Two 4-star generals publically requested Presidential veto.
Citizens of the state of Montana are attempting to recall their members of congress who voted 'yea' for NDAA 2012.
And here are germane concerns expressed by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.
Florida's members of Congress profess to believe they protected civil liberties and human rights within NDAA—email available below—although
one senator from Florida has co-sponsored a 'Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011' apparently as an attempted 'precaution' recognizing that judicial
interpretations are anyone's guess and typically expedient.
Colorado Senator Mark Udall's reasonable amendment to strike objectionable language from NDAA 2012 was defeated.
Certainly there is no lack of controversy surrounding NDAA 2012 except in American presstitute circles—like BBC's reporting
the 'Iran sanctions bill' to be signed.
Here is the complete H.R.1540 bill text (1.2MB) as passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law 12/31/2011 by POTUS.
Don't give up: On January 18th, 2012, Congressman Ron Paul introduced House bill
HR 3785
which would repeal Section 1021 of NDAA 2012. There is another House bill,
HR 3676,
introduced December 15th, 2011, which proposes only to further modify the language of NDAA 2012 and which currently has more political support than
Dr. Paul's bill—perhaps because it is less than comprehensive in addressing areas of constituent concern. In any case it is doubtful that either bill
can become law without an unlikely and massive public outcry.
NDAA email exchanges: NOTE: Only 13 senators opposed the final NDAA 2012 version—all the rest ultimately may prove to be unwitting enemies
of the Constitution. Below are email exchanges with members of Congress regarding NDAA 2012—of these correspondents only Senator Rand Paul of KY valiantly opposed
this legislation during the legislative process:
Here is 12/20/2011 response to Senator Nelson's 12/20/2011 email.
Here is 12/20/2011 response to Senator Rubio's 12/20/2011 email.
Here is 12/23/2011 response to Congressman Miller's 12/22/2011 email.
Here is Senator Rand Paul's 02/03/2012 email regarding Senate & House bills S.1867 & H.R.1540 & NDAA 2012.
Here is Senator Mark Udall's 03/08/2012 email regarding repealing parts of NDAA 2012
per The Huffington Post.
NDAA veto request from a Vietnam veteran believing
the military should have no authority or purview whatsoever over civilians:
Here is a one-size-fits-all 12/29/2011 White House reply to a very specific NDAA 2012 VETO request.
The reply lacks mention of issues surrounding NDAA 2012 and discusses defeating 'al-Qaida', whoever that is, TBD.
PIPA and SOPA and PROTECT IP: emails & information are found by clicking here.
NDAA parting shots:
The presstitutes were essentially silent about these issues. NDAA was quietly and overwhelmingly supported by Congress. The President signed
H.R.1540 into law on New Year's Eve without fanfare. Here are some JFK thoughts on transparency and secrecy.
Can any one of YOUR members of Congress tell you how to recognize 'the enemy'? (IE 'al Quaeda members' and 'associated forces'?)
"We'll know 'em when we see 'em"—dangerous criteria to any society—especially one under military purview.
The Constitution appears to be confetti by law.
Senator Rubio's email to me states in part: "I voted against the Udall amendment and in favor of compromise language which states that the
President already has the authority to detain individuals associated with Al Qaeda or other terror groups regardless of their citizenship."
This seems to suggest the possibility that the detention text is present partly to vindicate past actions of Bush and associates and help cast dispersions
on their accusers—remember that Senator John McCain spearheaded the pro-detention-language movement in congress and fought Senator Rand Paul who
tried vainly to defend YOUR rights in opposing this legislation.
"You can ignore reality, but you can’t ignore the consequences of ignoring reality."—Ayn Rand
| 