Ring in the New Year with Less Freedom

While you were partying, President Obama signed The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. Ironically, this bill passed through Congress on December 15, 2011, National Bill of Rights Day. The president signed it on New Year's Eve, while everyone focused on the night's events. The NDAA is not just another bill about how to allocate the funds for the military, although that is part of it. It contains a section that should make every freedom-loving American and some foreigners shake in their boots. It allows for the detainment of Americans indefinitely, without pressing charges or a trial. Of course, before detaining a citizen, there are certain requirements.

Like most bills, this bill contains wording that is vague and questionable.

The law indicates that a war on terrorism is indeed a real war like those fought in the battleground. The problem is that terrorism isn't a country or a place; it's a concept. Are you being a terrorist if you disagree with the powers in Washington? If that's true, then as Scoopy Doo might say, "Rut-roh!" Many of us would now be terrorists. The law does outline the people it covers.

Subtitle D-Counterterrorism

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF

THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS

PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) IN GENERAL.-Congress affirms that the authority of the

President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to

the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40;

50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces

of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in sub-

section (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) COVERED PERSONS.-A covered person under this section

is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided

the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,

or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a 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,

including any person who has committed a belligerent act or

has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy

forces.

Of course, in this case the "covered persons" must be either helping the al-Qaeda (no problem), the Taliban (no problem) or associated hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, (not certain who they're talking about.) including any persons who has committed a belligerent act (here's a big problem.)
There may be no need to worry about the bill when you read the definition of a covered person in section (b); after all, we want our country safe from al-Qaeda, don't we? When I looked at that term belligerent, bad memories from my childhood began to rise to the surface. That was what my mother told me I was when I voiced my opinion. Come to think of it, that's what I was called in class when I pointed out an error in the teacher's judgment. (We had to write the preamble to the Constitution as our punishment and to this day, I still can say it verbatim.) Belligerent is a broad sweeping concept that can mean anything, but normally, means you don't see eye to eye with authority. Another "Rut-roh" from Scooby.

So what would happen to these belligerent beings?

(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.-The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) 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.

If the detention is without trial until the end of hostilities, which is an imaginary war on terrorism, then it simply means forever, or until you learn a thing or two young lady....wait, wait, I've gone back to my childhood again.

There's a tale, which may be true or not, that if you put a lobster in a pan with cold water and then turn up the heat, the temperature change is so subtle, he'll remain in the water until he boils to death, without even a struggle. I look at this law and many of the other freedom robbing laws and question where are we going. Even though Obama says he doesn't intend to use the power given him, it certainly doesn't mean others won't. Are we lobsters and the pot is now on simmer? Are our freedoms being taken away bit by bit, until one day, we'll all be boiled? While I am a bit of tin foil hat woman, I'm not prone to writing about it due to laziness, unless I believe there is real danger. Have you heard about the law on mainstream television? Have you heard about the arrests of those protesting against the law? You probably won't either.

Take heed and watch for the changes. We no longer have many of the rights we once believed were inalienable. Little by little, like the lobster in the heat of the pot, they've been chipped and stripped from us. The only thing left is boiling, but then--it's too late.



NDAA 1021, 1022
Forbes: President Obama Signed the National Defense Authorization Act - Now What?
Infowars.com: Nightly News: Obama Signs Draconian NDAA Citizen Detention Bill