NDAA?

Internment Camp Guards Needed In The US

Look at a current Job Advertisement:- Job Title As an Internment/Resettlement Specialist for the Army National Guard, you will ensure the smooth running of military confinement/correctional facility or detention/internment facility, similar to those duties conducted by civilian Corrections Officers. This will require you to know proper procedures and military law; and have the ability to think quickly in high-stress situations. Specific duties may include assisting with supervision and management operations; providing facility security; providing custody, control, supervision, and escort; and counseling individual prisoners in rehabilitative programs.

Corrections Officer Internment/Resettlement Specialist
Job Details
City: Pensacola/Panama City
State: Florida
Country: USA
Company Name: Army National Guard
Job Category: Legal/Law Enforcement/Security
Job Description

So that’s not a normal Prison Guard is it! Alex Jones has always spoken of Martial Law coming and the only alternative to FEMA Camps is, Martial Law.

The Bush-era proposal would also have required airlines and cruise lines to store more information about domestic and international passengers, such as e-mail addresses, traveling companions and return flight information. The information would be subject to review by federal officials in a health emergency, though it would be voluntary for passengers to provide the data.

The proposals to limit liberty represent a dangerous precedent to constitutional theory, particularly when there’s almost no evidence it will matter. It wouldn’t surprise me if they try to sneak this past in August, when people are away.

The next stage I would expect would be to move more US Troops out of the USA on deployment so they don’t become a threat as Patriots and bring in Foreign Troops

Tn NDAA Nullification Bill To Arrest Feds On Kidnapping Charges

State and local resistance to the detention provisions contained in the National Defense Authorization Act continues to grow, rapidly emerging as a nationwide movement.

The Tennessee legislature will consider HB1629 and SB2669 in the 2012 session. The legislation would effectively nullify the detention provisions in the NDAA and would also require federal agents making an arrest in the Volunteer State for any reason to first obtain written permission from the county sheriff.

This bill declares that any federal law purporting to require local or state law enforcement agencies to act at the direction of the federal government or the United States military is beyond the authority granted to the federal government pursuant to the United States Constitution, is not recognized by this state, is specifically rejected by this state and is declared to be invalid in this state. This bill further declares that any federal law purporting to give federal agents or employees, including any members of the United States military, the authority of any state or local law enforcement agency of this state, without the express permission of this state, is beyond the authority granted to the federal government pursuant to the United States Constitution, is not recognized by this state, is specifically rejected by this state, and is declared to be invalid in this state.

The act takes aim at indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA. Tenth Amendment Center communications director Mike Maharrey called language in the NDAA vague and overbroad, pointing out that Americans should never simply trust in the good intentions and moral clarity of the president or federal judges to protect their rights.

“It falls on the states to step in and protect their citizens,” he said. “I can’t imagine a more clear-cut application of state and local interposition as a check on federal power. What could be a more palpable, deliberate and dangerous unconstitutional act than the federal government indefinitely detaining an American citizen without due process?”

The Tennessee bill also “makes it a Class E felony for any official, agent, or employee of the United States government to enforce or attempt to enforce any federal law, order, rule or regulation that is beyond the authority granted to the federal government pursuant to the United States Constitution,” and includes provisions for kidnapping charges if a federal agent were to detain a U.S. citizen in Tennessee under the NDAA.

Rep. Bill Dunn (R-Knoxville) and Rep. Cameron Sexton (R-Crossville) sponsor the House version of the bill. Sen. Stacey Campfield (R-Knoxville) sponsors the Senate bill.

The Volunteer state joins Washington and Virginia considering legislation to nullify detention provisions in the NDAA. And local governments have also stepped up, including El Paso and Fremont Counties in Colorado. While some argue the NDAA doesn’t apply to American citizens, Maharrey said that notion should not stop state and local governments from following James Madison’s admonition to interpose and draw a line in the sand.

“If what supporters say is true and the NDAA does not authorize indefinite detention of Americans, what is the harm in this legislation? Why would anybody oppose it? It does nothing but serve notice that state and local officials will not sit back and allow the federal government to exercise unconstitutional powers – powers supporters claim don’t exist anyway. It simply affirms a fence that supposedly already exists.

The only rational I can find for opposing this bill is if they really do want the option of detaining Americans without due process to remain open,” he said. “You can only oppose this legislation if you accept the idea that the federal government has the authority to do whatever it wants with absolutely no check on its actions – Constitution be damned. If you ask me, that’s a lot scarier than whatever terrorist threat they claim to be protecting me from.”

TAC executive Michael Boldin said he expects other states to soon follow the lead of Tennessee, Virginia and Washington.

“We have pretty strong indications that Rhode Island, Utah, Maine, New Jersey, Oklahoma and other states will be introducing similar legislation soon. This is just a start – and activists all over the country need to contact state legislators right now to voice their support.”

How US Shrinks Freedoms

The article, published in the January 14 edition of the Washington Post blasts the annual US government reports that censure rights abuses in other countries, and lists 10 recent US laws that seriously undermine individual rights and freedoms, most notably the recent National Defense Authorization Act, signed by President Barack Obama on December 31, 2011, allowing for the indefinite detention of citizens.

According to the article, US intelligence and judicial procedures have introduced over the past ten years laws and regulations that grant Washington the authority to openly undermine the very principle of liberty in the country and abuse civil liberties that have long served as America's pretexts to launch human rights publicity campaigns against its perceived foes.

Assassination of US citizens

President Barack Obama has extended former President George W. Bush's order to kill "any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism." The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki last year is the latest example of a US citizen falling victim to the practice.

Indefinite detentions

Earlier, Washington signed a practice into law that allows for the incarceration of 'terrorism suspects' by the military forces or upon a presidential order without a trial. Despite wide criticisms against the practice, the White House insists that it will oppose efforts to challenge such authority in federal courts.

Arbitrary justice

Obama maintains the Bush-initiated practice of deciding whether a person should stand trial in the federal courts or in a military tribunal. This is while the system is being widely 'ridiculed' across the world for its lack of basic due process protections.

Warrantless searches

The US president has acquired a sweeping power to order surveillances without justification, including the authority to order companies and organizations to provide the government with information on citizens and conduct searches of everything from business documents to library records.

Secret evidence

The US government has officially made itself entitled to resort to 'secret evidence' to detain individuals and use such evidence in federal and military courts.

It has also used 'national security' as the pretext to dismiss the cases against the United States, contending that the government cannot reveal classified information even to the affected party.

Secret court

The government has extended the scope of its authority to use the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to bring the individuals deemed to be aiding or abetting hostile foreign governments or organizations to trial.

The powers also allow for secret searches of individuals who are not part of an identifiable terrorist group.

War crimes

The Obama administration has insisted that it would not allow the CIA employees to be investigated or prosecuted for waterboarding terrorism suspects during the Bush administration.

The current administration has also reportedly urged foreign governments not to allow any investigation into the war crimes by Bush officials to proceed in their respective countries.

Immunity from judicial review

Both the Bush and Obama administrations have pushed for immunity for companies that conduct warrantless surveillance of citizens. The efforts have deprived the American citizens of their right to challenge the violation of their privacy.

Continual monitoring of citizens

The White House has succeeded to assert its claim that it is authorized to employ GPS devices to monitor all the activities of targeted citizens without a need for court order or review.

Extraordinary renditions

The US government has made itself authorized to transfer both US citizens and noncitizens to a third party country to avoid the legal consequences of torture on American soil. The practice is called by critics as "torture by proxy."

On September 11, 2001, a series of coordinated attacks were carried out in the United States, leaving almost 3,000 people dead.

Many American individuals and organizations still question the official line on what exactly happened on 9/11. Many of them believe that the attacks were either partly or entirely an inside job.

The US, under the Bush administration, invaded Afghanistan in 2001 after claiming that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by members of al-Qaeda harbored by the then Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

The US also attacked Iraq in 2003 claiming that the Middle Eastern country was in possession of weapons of mass destruction; however, after invading the country, the claim proved to have been baseless.

Does Silence on NDAA Prove Plot To Destroy Ameria?

"This year we are witnessing not just a series of brutal but fundamentally independent human rights violations committed by disparate governments around the globe. This year we are witnessing something far more fundamental and far more dangerous. This year we are witnessing the orchestrated destruction by the United States of the very basis, the fragile scaffolding, upon which international human rights have been built, painstakingly, bit by bit by bit, since the end of World War II." - William F. Schulz, former Executive Director of Amnesty International USA, speaking in 2003. (1).

There is a conspiracy of silence about the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, otherwise known as the "Indefinite Detention Bill."

This treasonous violation of the rights of American citizens and all human beings on "Battlefield Earth" must be understood in the larger political and historical context of the American Deep State, which professor and author Peter Dale Scott says "refers to a parallel secret government, organized by the intelligence and security apparatus, financed by drugs, and engaging in illicit violence, to protect the status and interests of the military against threats from intellectuals, religious groups, and occasionally the constitutional government," (2)


Seen from this perspective, the NDAA is all part of the plan. Its swift passage by the Senate and White House is a clear indication that the American Deep State is preparing for big events, even bigger than 9/11. Since it is a creature that feeds on drama and violence, it will produce greater drama and violence.

A basic reading of the current political and economic situation suggests that the American Deep State is in the process of triggering various domestic and foreign crises, such as a war against Iran and an economic collapse, in order to consolidate more power and control at the executive level.

A full-frontal attack on Iran by the American Deep State and the Israeli Deep State would quickly develop into a global state of emergency, which will be used by the traitors in Washington to implement their global authoritarian agenda and exercise their unchecked power against awakened American citizens more openly.

The evil monsters who own the American Deep State, and give this beast its purpose, have psychologically and spiritually separated themselves from the American people and common humanity to such an extent that they exist on a different plane of social reality. They are free to commit atrocities like the September 11 attacks not only because the laws of America don't apply to them, but the laws of God as well.

Murder and mystery are in the DNA of the American Deep State. Since the death of JFK, it has silently suffocated the American Dream in the long night of amnesia, during which the American people were put in a state of deep sleep by the mind manipulators in the CIA and mainstream media.

What has existed under the American Deep State is what author and teacher Michael Tsarion calls a "psychic dictatorship." Tsarion said in 2006 in a lecture in Los Angeles: "The real war is a psychic one. The real war is on consciousness. And too many people are forgetting this in this conspiratorial movement, so to speak, or in alternative history. And I will not ever make that mistake."

Ron Paul Fights Against NDAA

Ron Paul took a day off from the campaign trail on Wednesday, not to pause from politics, but to urge his colleagues on Capitol Hill to overturn the provision in the National Defense Authorization Act that allows indefinite detention for Americans.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, or the NDAA, was inked by President Barack Obama on New Year’s Eve, despite immense opposition from Americans who were concerned by vague language that could allow the commander-in-chief to use military forces to domestically police the United States. Under Section 1021 of the NDAA, any person, US citizen or not, can be held without trial by American armed forces if they are suspected of being engaged in hostilities against the country by al-Qaeda or associated forces.

Opponents of the act — and there are many — have questioned the language of the specific section, as it could be written to allow the president to enforce the law to imprison anyone suspected of any crime that could be considered by the right person in office to be an act of terror. President Obama said that he would not abide by this rule, but despite a signing statement that his administration won’t act in that manner, it does not mean that the promise will be upheld.

ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero called Obama’s approval of the legislation is "a blight on his legacy," insisting that “he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” and the Council on American-Islamic Relations called the bill an “ill-conceived and un-American legislation” that will “forever be seen as a stain on our nation’s history — one that will ultimately be viewed with embarrassment and shame.” Additionally, this week RT reported that noted journalist Chris Hedges has filed a lawsuit against the White House over the legislation, questioning the legality of the authorization and calling it “a catastrophic blow to civil liberties.”

On Wednesday this week, however, Ron Paul spoke from Capitol Hill, not South Carolina where the rest of his Republican Party rivals were campaigning before the state’s primary scheduled for this weekend. While in Washington to vote against raising the debt ceiling, Congressman Ron Paul also used the opportunity to go after Obama for signing the NDAA and offered a proposal that, if passed, would strike Section 1031 off the Act.

The move makes Paul not just the first frontrunner in the race for the GOP nomination to speak out against the act, but the first congressman to openly offer a solution to the legislation since it was authorized into law.

Paul began his address on Wednesday by noting that the National Defense Authorization Act was “quietly signed into law by the president on New Year’s Day,” sarcastically saluting it by adding, “and what a way to usher in a New Year.”

“Section 1021 provides for the possibility of the US military acting as a kind of police force on US soil, apprehending terror suspects – including Americans — and whisking them off to an undisclosed location indefinitely,” said Paul.

“No right to attorney, no right to trial, no day in court.”

ACLU Trashes Obama Re NDAA

“He will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law.”

These harsh words come courtesy of the executive director of the ACLU, formerly a supporter of the president but also just one of the many dissenters who have since have grown disillusioned with an administration tarnished by unfulfilled campaign promises and continuous constitutional violations.

When he signed the National Defense Authorization Act on New Year’s Eve, President Barack Obama said that he had his reservations over the controversial legislation that will allow for the indefinite detention of Americans.

Now some of the president’s pals are expressing their agreement with Obama’s own hesitation but say that the commander-in-chief should have thought harder before signing away the civil liberties of Americans.

Under the bill, which approves all defense spending for the 2012 fiscal year, certain provisions allow for the military detainment and torture of US citizens, indefinitely, essentially allowing for Guantanamo Bay-style prisons to be a real possibility for every American. As the act floated around Congress, an underground outrage erupted and activists attempted to keep the bill from leaving the House and the Senate, although a lack of media coverage largely left the matter hidden to the public. Despite this campaign, the legislation made it out of the Capitol Building and into the Oval Office last month, prompting advocates against the act to petition for the president to veto it.

Initially the Obama administration said the president’s advisers would recommend a veto, but later rescinded the threat. Senator Carl Levin eventually revealed that President Obama had insisted on adding the wording that has made NDAA such a target among activists who are frightened of the civil liberty-stripping capabilities.

One week after the president did ink the legislation, some of Obama’s old pals are saying they are in disbelief over how a former constitutional law professor could agree to such provisions that crush the law of the land.

"President Obama's action … is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law," ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero says in a statement. Such a charge not only carries much clout because it comes courtesy of the head of such an integral and reputable advocacy group, but Romero himself was praising the president three years earlier after he won the 2008 election. Now that same administration is doing everything Romero thought it wouldn’t.

“I believe he knows what he needs to do to restore the America we believe in, to get us on back on track, to give us back our America, an America we never stopped believing in but have sorely missed for the past eight years,” Romero wrote in 2008 in an op-ed that encouraged the president to follow through on his campaign promise of closing Guantanamo Bay. “Call me naive, but I honestly believe he wants to do it. He promised us that on the campaign trail, and I believe it was more than an empty promise,” wrote Romero.

You Are The Target, Are You Afraid, Yet?

Single State Defies NDAA Detainment Act

When Congress adopted and Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, alarms were raised over the possibility that it would allow the indefinite and rights-free detention of those who are called “belligerents,” even if they are American citizens.

While the argument over those provisions rages, one state lawmaker in Rhode Island has jumped into action to protect the danger he sees for residents of his state, proposing a resolution to exempt his constituents from sections of the federal law.

Rep. Daniel P. Gordon Jr. today told WND he has drafted a resolution, which is being circulated among the lawmakers even now, to express opposition to the sections of the NDAA “that suspend habeas corpus and civil liberties.”

“Sections 1021 and 1022 of the act, signed into law on New Years Eve of 2011, provide for the indefinite detention of American citizens by the military on American soil, without charge, and without right to legal counsel and right to trial,” he explained.

The instruction manual on how to restore America to what it once was: “Taking America Back.” This package also includes the “Tea Party at Sea.”

“Given the fact that the constitutions of Rhode Island and that of the United States are replete with guarantees of individual liberties, right to habeas corpus, and right to freedom of speech, the offending sections of that law are repugnant to the sensibilities of anyone that has a basic understanding of the foundation of this country,” he said.

The opinions on the legislation signed by Obama vary. Commentator Chuck Baldwin, who himself has been the target of smears by the Department of Homeland Security-related apparatus, explained the law, “for all intents and purposes, completely nullifies a good portion of the Bill of Rights, turns the United States into a war zone, and places U.S. citizens under military rule.”

He noted that Mike Adams at NaturalNews.com was horrified, writing, “One of the most extraordinary documents in human history – the Bill of Rights – has come to an end under President Barack Obama. Derived from sacred principles of natural law, the Bill of Rights has come to a sudden and catastrophic end with the president’s signing of the National defense Authorization Act, a law that grants the U.S. military the ‘legal’ right to conduct secret kidnappings of U.S. citizens, followed by indefinite detention, interrogation, torture and even murder.

This is all conducted completely outside the protection of law, with no jury, no trial, no legal representation and not even any requirement that the government produce evidence against the accused.

“When signing the NDAA into law, Obama issued a signing statement that
in essence said, ‘I have the power to detain Americans … but I
won’t,” Baldwin wrote.

Baldwin was vilified by an anti-terror campaign in Missouri several years ago when authorities there described suspicious characters as those who might have supported Baldwin or other third-party candidates during a presidential election.

Why I'm Suing Ombama Et Al Re NDAA

The act authorizes the military in Title X, Subtitle D, entitled “Counter-Terrorism,” for the first time in more than 200 years, to carry out domestic policing. With this bill, which will take effect March 3, the military can indefinitely detain without trial any U.S. citizen deemed to be a terrorist or an accessory to terrorism. And suspects can be shipped by the military to our offshore penal colony in Guantanamo Bay and kept there until “the end of hostilities.” It is a catastrophic blow to civil liberties.

I spent many years in countries where the military had the power to arrest and detain citizens without charge. I have been in some of these jails. I have friends and colleagues who have “disappeared” into military gulags. I know the consequences of granting sweeping and unrestricted policing power to the armed forces of any nation. And while my battle may be quixotic, it is one that has to be fought if we are to have any hope of pulling this country back from corporate fascism.

Section 1031 of the bill defines a “covered person”—one subject to detention—as “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.”

The bill, however, does not define the terms “substantially supported,” “directly supported” or “associated forces.”

But I suspect the real purpose of this bill is to thwart internal, domestic movements that threaten the corporate state. The definition of a terrorist is already so amorphous under the Patriot Act that there are probably a few million Americans who qualify to be investigated if not locked up. Consider the arcane criteria that can make you a suspect in our new military-corporate state.

The Department of Justice considers you worth investigating if you are missing a few fingers, if you have weatherproof ammunition, if you own guns or if you have hoarded more than seven days of food in your house. Adding a few of the obstructionist tactics of the Occupy movement to this list would be a seamless process. On the whim of the military, a suspected “terrorist” who also happens to be a U.S. citizen can suffer extraordinary rendition—being kidnapped and then left to rot in one of our black sites “until the end of hostilities.” Since this is an endless war that will be a very long stay.

This demented “war on terror” is as undefined and vague as such a conflict is in any totalitarian state. Dissent is increasingly equated in this country with treason. Enemies supposedly lurk in every organization that does not chant the patriotic mantras provided to it by the state. And this bill feeds a mounting state paranoia. It expands our permanent war to every spot on the globe. It erases fundamental constitutional liberties. It means we can no longer use the word “democracy” to describe our political system.

Americans Plan Protest Against NDAA

Across the country Americans plan to protest the recent passage of the NDAA bill and signing on New Year’s Eve by President Obama.

Citizens will gather outside congressional offices Feb. 3rd from noon to 7 p.m. to protest NDAA 2012 (H.R. 1540), the controversial National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.

Many Americans were shocked when it was signed quietly by President Obama New Year’s eve for it gives the U.S. Military and other agencies in the government Egyptian military style powers of arrest and detention of Americans anywhere, anytime and for any reason.

The act also allows them to be indefinitely detained without access to an attorney or a trial by jury. Indefinite means they could be held for life.

Amendments to exclude American citizens were rejected by the Obama administration and senate vote.

Some say this is one of the worst pieces of legislation regarding the constitutional rights of Americans to ever be signed into law.

Organizers say the objective of the February demonstration is to force congressional representatives into repealing Section 1021 and 1022, which could lead to the indefinite military detention of Americans without due process of law.

The protest is not affiliated with any particular political or grassroots organizations and organizers say they are uniting as individuals who want to “stop this tyranny before it gets worse.”

On its website the group says, “Congress and President Obama have declared war on Americans. The last time America was declared a military zone President Roosevelt authorized the internment of Americans with Executive Order 9066, issued February 19, 1942.

Senator Graham has said that America is part of the battlefield, and as such, Americans can be captured, interrogated, and killed with no due process.

NDAA 2012 repeals the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments to the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and declares our right to due process. No law shall supersede it. We have a right to our day in court with a jury of our peers.”

Montanans Organize To Recall

Montana is one of nine states with provisions that say that the right of recall extends to recalling members of its federal congressional delegation, pursuant to Montana Code 2-16-603, on the grounds of physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of certain felony offenses.

Section 2 of Montana Code 2-16-603 reads:

“(2) A public officer holding an elective office may be recalled by the qualified electors entitled to vote for the elective officer’s successor.”

While the Montana Constitution (and those of other states) allows for a recall to take place, there is some question about whether these powers, which are technically undefined by the US Constitution, can be used to remove acting Congressional representatives:

The website Ballotpedia.org cites eight other states which allow for the recall of elected federal officials: Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, and Wisconsin. New Jersey’s federal recall law was struck down when a NJ state judge ruled that “the federal Constitution does not allow states the power to recall U.S. senators,” despite the fact the Constitution explicitly allows, by not disallowing (“prohibited” in the Tenth Amendment,) the states the power to recall US senators and congressmen:

“The powers not…prohibited…are reserved to the States…or to the people.” – Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The issue of federal official recall has never reached the federal courts.

Nonetheless, we may soon find out, as Montana is spearheading the movement to remove both of their Senators from office, as per the petition draft that is now circulating:

“The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees all U.S citizens:

“a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…”

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA 2011) permanently abolishes the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, “for the duration of hostilities” in the War on Terror, which was defined by President George W. Bush as “task which does not end” to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.

Those who voted Aye on December 15th, 2011, Bill of Rights Day, for NDAA 2011 have attempted to grant powers which cannot be granted, which violate both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

The Montana Recall Act stipulates that officials including US senators can only be recalled for physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of a felony offense. We the undersigned call for a recall election to be held for Senator Max S. Baucus [and Senator Jonathan Tester] and charge that he has violated his oath of office, to protect and defend the United States Constitution.”

While there may be eight other states whose Constitutions allow for the recall of federally elected officials, the US Constitution itself has reserved these rights for the people of each state, suggesting that such a recall movement can gain steam all over the country, and may be our last best hope of restoring Constitutional rule of law to America.