New Year's Eve Obama signed into law NDAA, which essentially brings the Nazi regime in the U.S.. From now on, the authorities can monitor any citizen under the pretext of fighting terrorism. The following analysis of the law and its consequences
Last week, the U.S. Congress signed into law the National Defense (NDAA — National Defense Authorization Act 2012), for which even the Senate voted on December 1 ninety-three votes to seven. We are talking about the budget of the Ministry of Defence, which is adopted annually.
682-page draft law contains some passages that are contrary to the U.S. Constitution.
We are talking about sections 1031 and 1032 of the Act. According to these foreigners and U.S. citizens can be detained indefinitely by the U.S. military under martial law without a trial and to provide protection if they fall under the category «covered person», that is suspected of having links to a terrorist organization.
As stated in section 1031, these are "the person who planned the September 11, 2001, knew about it in advance, which helped in its implementation or hide the perpetrators."
Such determination came after Sept. 11, 2001, and now has been updated. This formulation has been described in such a way that the number of suspects gets a lot more people. In paragraph B states: "A person who is or was formerly a member of al-Qaida, the Taliban or their supporting forces hostile to the United States or its coalition partners, including the persons who are directly carried out the hostile actions or assist in its implementation."
Anyone who falls into this category, can be imprisoned for an indefinite time, to the "end of conflict" without charge or trial. Prisoners have no right to a lawyer, and deprived of the opportunity to appeal. Thus, prisoners are denied all rights guaranteed by the constitution and the United States. Principle «habeas corpus», provide binding legal grounds for detention, thus was pushed to the side. Thus, the U.S. justice back to the Middle Ages.
However, these changes are almost no coverage in the German media. Although the U.S. still went fierce debate between Senators. But, nevertheless, many proposed amendments, such as the Non-Proliferation of law to citizens of the United States, have been rejected. For example, an application for exemption from the terms of the one voted for by the majority of Democratic senators, was rejected, as was just two votes Republican.
Even those senators who adamantly argued against the current version of the law, after all, voted "yes". This law is upheld even Senator Mark Kirk, who chastised him and even advised his colleagues to re-read the constitution. What critics finally did agree, has a reason. Without the signing of this law the U.S. military budget could not be confirmed. Cancellation of the constitutional rights of association with the adoption of the U.S. military budget can be considered as a means of reducing the risk of resistance in both houses of parliament.
In addition, some abstract document formulated so confusing that this confusion is deliberately used the supporters of the law in open debate. For example, they point to the fact that the unlimited duration of imprisonment in general it is not. This is true, but the phrase "detention under martial law without trial until the end of the conflict with the enemy," says the little of it. After all, the "war on terror" has no clearly defined goals and, therefore, no time limits. The authors of this law — Former President George W. Bush and Dick Cheney — on the contrary, they said that this conflict will not go out for a few generations. Besides, what is called "linked to al-Qaeda forces," can be anything. And based on the fact that one of the judges of the U.S. in the trial of the victims and relatives of those killed in the September 11 attacks blamed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as well as all Iranians of supporting terrorists, the "indisputable" law is particularly funny. Do I need to now all Iranians fear that they meet the definition of «covered persons»?
Moreover, al-Qaeda, with its Wahhabi ideology, is an outspoken enemy of Iran. Taliban are also not listed in the list of friends of the Persian country, to that Tehran and cooperated with NATO forces in Afghanistan.
Taliban — is the brainchild of the Pakistani intelligence services ISI, which, in turn, is working with the CIA and receives financial and professional support from its big brother in the U.S.. Theoretically, in the category «covered person» and many employees come from Langley, although in practice they have nothing to fear.
Signed at the moment the law gives the U.S. Army and the White House to the right in its sole discretion, without any evidence, to conclude people into custody for life. Why critics call the NDAA «law granting himself emergency powers."
Those who support the NDAA, say critics exaggerate the law, because the law does not apply to U.S. citizens. In addition, this law is nothing new — in fact the last ten years, the U.S. kept in custody without trial for its military bases of people, called "enemies", the practice is now "just" was legitimate.
On the one hand, the right (that does not justify the practice), but the fact that U.S. citizens are not subject to the law, not the facts. Although section 1032 of the jurisdiction of the law against U.S. citizens and legally residing in the U.S. foreigners says that he "does not apply to them," but this section prevails over section 1031, which states that it is possible to be included among these categories of citizens " covered person ». It should be read carefully. After all, in the paragraph of section 1032, which states that the law does not apply to U.S. citizens, nothing is written about the citizens of the United States that fall under the definition of «covered person». The law gives the U.S. military the right to detain and also U.S. citizens.
In general, this means one thing: for instance, an Afghan Taliban fighters support, should be taken into custody, and the American — may be taken into custody.
The bill also has a so-called «waiver», allowing the president to release the detainee to freedom "in the interests of national security." Supporters of the bill say that in case of war, enemy soldiers can be detained up to its end, that he did not commit war crimes. The main thesis of their argument is that it should be involved in the war in the form of soldiers (under the Geneva Convention covered soldiers in uniform. — Ed.). Thus hide the fact that the "war on terror" — is an asymmetric war against "terrorists", or more simply, civilians, will never end. As a result, we get the following result: "a military arrest" in no way limited timeframe. And it also hides the supporters of this law.
They also refer to the judgment of the court on the case of Jose Padilla. In the summer of 2002, the U.S. citizen was recognized as President Bush's "enemy combatants" and disappeared in a military prison. In September 2005, the Court of Cassation confirmed the president's right to hold a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil without charges, as the authority of the President of the United States in time of war is essential to the survival and security of the nation from terrorist attacks.
Under pressure from human rights activists still Padilla appeared before a civilian court — in three and a half years from the time of arrest. He was sentenced to 17 years and four months in prison, although the indictment did not mention the fact that he allegedly wanted to create a "dirty bomb." Prosecutors did not show him any specific charges or incriminated him direct links to al-Qaeda, but instead he was charged with "conspiracy to murder people abroad", as well as supporting the jihad overseas U.S..
Padilla's lawyer, Andrew Petel, said after the verdict: "What happened at the meeting, should be viewed in the context of the Patriot Act, under which the government must prove the guilt of the crime, and can charge people to support the fact that, according to the government should occur. In this case, the prosecution used the defendant talk about what should happen. In such a consequence government need not produce evidence that is required for the normal conduct of the trial. "
Paul Craig Roberts, a deputy finance minister in the government of Ronald Reagan, put it more harshly: "The proceedings against Padilla turned the U.S. Constitution on its head and caused more damage than would have been the most terrible terrorist."
In the coffin of the constitution was hammered another nail. Hope that President Obama can still cancel this law are unfounded. After all, the White House was the author of those paragraphs that are denied to U.S. citizens in the protection of the indefinite detention of a military tribunal. White House a few days ago said that he would not veto this bill. Thus, the soldiers received an order on terror "FAS». The U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1787, has been canceled. Welcome to the XVII century.
Hintergrund (Germany) Sebastian Rango
And when you consider that even before a law was passed authorizing the U.S. military to operate in the United States, up to the dictatorship only one step: the introduction of martial law. Have to wait for some large terrorist attack. For example, the assassination of President …
By the way, on this subject there is an opinion of a lawyer:
Working until recently with the contracts drawn up between local companies and the Russian regulatory documents, I can see that our documents are sufficiently specific and precise. But even in this case, discrepancies occur regularly and dvusmyselennosti perception written by different parties. I think most of the readers did not work with foreign documents and ill themselves a situation with them.
But on the last job we contracted with foreigners … In terms of the text — and a half times more than the "B & M" Tolstoy. Moreover, I will give an inexperienced person to choose to read ten pages of text, and I'm sure he did not even guess that it is a contract. Contract consists of two parts, each part of the 11 sections, each section is a few (0 to 12) applications. Plus amendments to sections and applications. Let's say you need to understand what is said on a particular issue in a contract killing a few hours time, will not find anything concrete on quite an important issue. But we have a contract manager, two contract specialists (lawyers), from which achieve anything is impossible. There sits a bourgeois PH.D., which type of contracts and strangely from him also did not know the concrete.
All this is what I am. During 4 months of working with foreign treaties, I realized one thing — they are designed in such a way that all issues are resolved verbally. Specifically spelled out in the contract is fairly small. The structure of the document — the Gordian knot. The best part — any suggestions, recommendations, descriptions, reservations, etc. Who at a time master of the situation — and that dictates the conditions in the case of disputes.
Somehow, I'm sure that in the import legislation, all the same. Much has been written, but not very specific. It all depends on who will interpret the writing. Attempts to understand what was written, will not lead to anything but a headache. If you need to put the right person — Explain against a person if it will be necessary to justify — Explain right opposition. Gummanitariev sense the hand, write, and even think, not intentionally confuse documents, just in another way they can. And to create the impression that the documents are so complicated that a person on the side without legal education can not be understand as in the opposite case, the question arises — but what for do we need lawyers? And so — a crowd of parasites in business …
I can add one more nail in the U.S. Constitution — not so long ago, a law was passed by which the National Guard reassigned from governors to the President. Ie the sovereignty of each state individually, we can say does not exist. So the American people are ready for the banquet. Waiting for go-ahead.