Saturday, December 24, 2011

Last hope: Rep. Landry introduces amendment to NDAA to protect Americans from indefinite detention without due process

Representative Jeff Landry (R-LA)
Madison Ruppert, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

I have been extensively covering the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, commonly referred to as the NDAA, and the incredible dangers it presents (including authorization for covert offensive cyberwarfare) since I was first made aware of its existence.

If you’re not familiar with this legislation, please take the critical moments to educate yourself on this issue by reading my article about the predecessor bill, S. 1253, along with my first, second, and third articles about the latter versions along with my coverage of the civilian internee designation and KBR’s move to create teams to make the so-called FEMA camps operational within 72 hours.

This is a large picture that requires stepping back and taking in as much information as possible in order to truly understand what is going on and not be deceived by the traitors in Washington and their cronies in the establishment media outlets. I also recommend you take a moment to get yourself psychologically prepared for the worst, while hoping for the best.

I have been making a concerted effort to debunk the disinformation peddled by far too many people who claim that, despite the clear language in the bill to the contrary, American citizens cannot be indefinitely detained without charge or trial under the legislation.

Yet, the assault on our most essential civil liberties has been relentless, thanks greatly in part to the establishment media covering the NDAA as little as possible and a concerted effort by some of our so-called representatives like Congressman Tim Griffin to deceive the American people.

Thankfully, Jeff Landry, a freshman Republican Congressman from Louisiana introduced H.R. 3676 which intends, “To amend the detainee provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 to specifically state that United States citizens may not be detained against their will without all the rights of due process afforded to citizens in a court ordained or established by or under Article II of the Constitution of the United States.”

I think this is of dire importance for us all, as the lack of clear language prohibiting the detainee provisions from being applied to United States citizens and other lawful residents currently in the NDAA is nothing short of disturbing.

Recently, The Hill reported that Landry received “a commitment from House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) to revisit the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to ensure that language related to detainees does not give the U.S. government new rights to hold U.S. citizens without due process.”

It is important to note that despite the hollow claims repeatedly parroted by some of the traitors in Washington, the current language in the NDAA does not prohibit the detention of American citizens without charge or trial, as I have clearly outlined in previous articles.

To continue to say otherwise is, at this point, simply delusional.

Landry said that he has “a commitment from the chairman [of the House Armed Services Committee] that the type of language I have [in H.R. 3676] is the type of language he would use to clarify that.”

The unfortunate reality is that our so-called representatives in Washington already passed the NDAA with the un-American language wholly intact.

They did so with a truly unsettling margin, with only 13 Senators standing up for the most essential of our civil liberties and in the House a shocking 283 Congressmen and Congresswomen voted to strip us of the rights upon which this nation was built.

Landry rightly points out, “Congress over the last 30 years has just not done a good job of basically telling the administration through legislation what the confines of its power are. All we’re trying to do is say look, this is what Congress is trying to intend.”

If historical precedent is any indication, Landry’s insistence on getting iron-clad language into the bill is the only thing that will stop the criminals within our government from exploiting the legislation to put every American citizen who stands up to our out of control government in military detention indefinitely.

Unfortunately, Landry told The Hill that he does not expect McKeon’s committee to meet until early 2012, adding that he would be pushing for the work to begin at some point in January.

Landry reflected that he is hoping that a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee will assist in the clarification of the issues presented by the NDAA and perhaps eventually lead to improvements to the bill.

“The Founding Fathers granted Congress specific duties; and as a representative of the people, it is my duty to pass laws that protect the Constitutional rights of all American citizens,” Landry said earlier this month. “Toward this end, any statute that could possibly be interpreted to allow a President to detain American citizens without charge or trial is incredibly alarming and should be cautiously scrutinized.”

The grim reality is that Section 1021 of the NDAA presents, as you can see by reading it yourself on page 265 of this PDF version of H.R. 1540, as it was finally passed by both chambers.

Currently, Congressman Landry has a mere 30 co-sponsors by his side from both parties. While it is encouraging that there are 30 Representatives willing to stand up against the immense tide of federal tyranny, it is also somewhat troubling that only 30 people take their oath of office seriously.

While the Constitution only contains an oath of office for the president, other government officials “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution.”

Then in 1789, the First Congress changed the requirement to include a short oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”

The Presidential Oath of Office is as follows:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
This means that every single individual who signed the NDAA, without the preventative language included in Section 1021, is nothing short of a traitor.

If Obama signs the bill, as he has made clear he in fact will do by backing down from his laughable veto threat, he will also be in violation of his oath and could thus be classified as a domestic enemy of the Constitution, which in my mind would make him a “belligerent” who could then be detained indefinitely under the NDAA.

Of course, this would likely never happen, nor would justice be meted out to the Congressman and Senators who also betrayed their country and their constituents in voting for the NDAA.

At least we can continue to hope that individuals like Landry who, earlier this month, “engaged U.S. House Armed Services Committee Chairman in a colloquy … guaranteeing the legislative intent of the NDAA did not aim to indefinitely imprison American citizens,” will continue to fight for the rights of all Americans.

With the significant opposition Landry is facing in preserving our liberties, I honestly would not be surprised if his amendment was struck down.

That does not mean that we should not hold out some bit of hope, no matter how small, and continue to push our so-called representatives in Washington to uphold their oath and thus the Constitution and our liberties protected therein.

This article first appeared at End the Lie

Madison Ruppert is the Editor and Owner-Operator of the alternative news and analysis database End The Lie and has no affiliation with any NGO, political party, economic school, or other organization/cause. He is available for podcast and radio interviews. If you have questions, comments, or corrections feel free to contact him at


This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.


If you enjoy our work, please donate to keep our website going.


J.G Vibes said...

thanks again for this excellent report..ill be sharing this with my network :-)

Anonymous said...

Quite a concidence how everything started falling into place for the government immediately following 9/11 or was it? I think the former PNAC should thanks millions of Americans for being so gullible.+i am sure when this Washington based think-tank was craeted in September of 2000, they never dreamed they would be so successful so quickly."It is fortunate for the governments that the masses don't think." Adolf Hitler. google Land Destroyer/Which Way To Persia Read pages 84 and 85 of the 150 pages.never in the history of the world has a nation of so many ignorant people helped to bring a nation down."If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization,it expects what never was and never will be...if we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the RESPONSIBILITY of every citizen to be informed." Thomas Jefferson. Millions failed in that responsibility. Also, George Bernard Shaw warned that false knowledge was more dangerous than ignorance.

Anonymous said...

While I applaud Representative Landry's efforts, it is LUDICROUS that he should have to introduce and seek support for such legislation in the first place. In essence, he is seeking confirmation from Congress that they DO NOT INTEND to imprison American citizens without charges, without the benefit of counsel or a trial, and with NO HOPE of ever knowing the charges against them, or seeing the outside of a prison. Why hasn't Congress made these facts clear from the beginning? Why the ambiguous language in the NDAA?

The U.S. is now a confirmed police state, and our Congress and President are enemies of the people, and traitors to their country and oaths of office.

Anonymous said...

Feinstein already inserted protections for U.S. Citizens. Read the bill. It says nothing in the bill shall alter existing laws with respect to U.S. citizens. I don't know why the conspiracy theory crows seems intent on spreading this lie that there is no protection when it is plainly stated right there in the bill. I'm serious, why are you lying about this?

"Section 1021(e) Authorities- 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."

Anonymous said...

Troll alert above. So why would another rep go through this trouble? Besides, there's no way that amendment stays in when "O" signs it into law because it violates the Patriot Act.

FYI - "Existing laws" includes the Patriot Act which already gave this authority to the President for enemy combatants. The NDAA just ratifies and expands that power by declaring America a battlefield in the war on terror.

Please don't be an apologist for the cabal.

Anonymous said...

"So why would another rep go through this trouble?"
Because they are feeding off ignorant people and trying to seem like a champion to the ignorant. Do you believe politicians are being honest? LOL Did you read the bill? Protections are in there. Look it up. That is an indisputable fact to those who know how to read. You are choosing to believe the words of a politician over words in the bill that can be read in the text? That's called crazy.

"The Patriot Act which already gave this authority to the President for enemy combatants. There's no way that amendment stays in when "O" signs it into law because it violates the Patriot Act."

Which is it? Make up your mind. It violates the Patriot Act or it leaves the Patriot Act alone? Stop reading infowars and start reading the actual bill.

So you're not upset about this bill but the Patriot Act? Because this bill clearly does not affect existing laws relating to U.S. Citizens.

Anonymous said...

"Because this bill clearly does not affect existing laws relating to U.S. Citizens."

Have you ever actually reviewed American law?

The Patriot Act is 'existing law' and already allows for indefinite detention of ANYONE(regardless of nationality/citizenship) to be detained indefinitely without trial if they are deemed a 'threat' to the U.S.A and thus are designated as a 'enemy combatant'.

The NDAA declares the United States of America an official battlefield in the War on/of Terrorism, just like Iraq or Afghanistan.

Thus it makes it far easier to declare U.S citizens as 'enemy combatants' which completely strips them of their status as a U.S citizen and thus strips them of all their rights as a U.S citizen - including the rights provided by the laws protecting U.S citizens from unlawful detention.

Or as John McCain put it himself:

"I think as long as that individual, no matter who they are(including U.S citizens) pose a threat to the security of the United States of America should not be allowed to continue that threat..."

He then goes on with the typical political run-around to dodge having to answer any more serious questions on that matter with a spiel about how "27% of prisoners released got back into the fight to kill American citizens"(and ignoring the 78% - aka a large majority - who did not, as usual).

John McCain was given the clear opportunity in the Senate(I believe) to deny that U.S citizens will be declared 'enemy combatants' and thus be unlawfully detained, and he didn't come close to denying it.

You are completely avoiding the real issue while at least that douche McCain addresses it directly.

No laws to protect U.S citizens matter under the NDAA as once declared an "enemy combatant" you are stripped of citizen status and all rights and protections of law.

Get it yet?

Anonymous said...

This may help those that read nothing but infowars articles written by high schoolers to understand the true nature of the NDAA.

Jeff Lewis said...

With all due respect to Rep. Landry, his bill is as grossly flawed as the sections of the NDAA he supposes it will fix.

It does not address the "captured or arrested" component in several areas. One, H.R. 3676 skips past how a citizen might find themselves "detained." America is NOT the "battlefield." The military has no authority over civilian populations outside of a "declared emergency" that involves "insurrection or rebellion," that would also require the public safety to be in eminent danger. Plus, what's with the "against his or her will" part? Does anyone ever "willingly" approve of their "liberty" being denied?

Hamdi received "due process" after being detained without charges for over two years, and his detention was not by civil authorities, but by the military.

Second, receiving "due process" akin to that afforded in an Article III civilian court is not the same as receiving "due process" in an Article III court, and as citizens and lawful resident aliens, due process begins at the time of detention, NOT at some point down the road when the government decides to give you your day in court (military or civilian).

Also, item two of H.R. 3676 is identical to NDAA Section 1021 (e)(2) except U.S. citizens were removed from that clause.

Defending the Constitution requires that ALL parts of it are upheld, not just the parts you like. The 5th Amendment makes no distinction as to whether one is a citizen, lawful resident alien, or even an illegal alien, as it relates to the rights of due process on American soil. It says "No person..." That includes everyone.

Rep. Landry's bill also doesn't address the problem with how "covered persons" may treated while they're waiting for that "due process," in that you could still be shipped off to some foreign country, or unnamed foreign entity for interrogation/torture in the mean time.

The Republican leadership in the House, and both parties in the Senate are still playing games with our God-given unalienable Rights. In my opinion, this bill is simply a placebo to get folks off Congress' back about the violations in the NDAA. They still aren't taking their oath seriously as it relates to upholding the Constitution.

What Hitler did to the trade unionists and Jews was perfectly legal. The German people sat on their hands and allowed the slippery slope to become an avalanche of tyranny.

While it doesn't go far enough, there is one bill that's a good start toward fixing the problems in the 2012 NDAA, and that is NOT Mr. Landry's. Rep. Ron Paul's H.R. 3785 would "repeal Section 1021 completely." That, my fellow citizens, is an honest good start.

Post a Comment