Remember in my introduction how the news media only reports what they want you to see or hear?

How many of you have actually heard of the NDAA 2012? (crickets…)

The National Defense Authorization Act is a bill that goes through Congress every year to pay for supplies and salaries of the Armed Forces. Seems pretty standard.

In government classes, we learn about something called a Rider. A rider is a footnote added to a bill that is unrelated to the bill at hand, but it is added so that when the Bill becomes Law, it must be enforced. These often extend to “Pork Barrels,” in which a representative puts a footnote into a bill to bring in more money to his/her district.

Since the annual NDAA is a must-pass bill, anything thrown in last minute will guarantee its regulation is upheld. Of course, there is nothing wrong with paying the salaries of our men and women in the armed forces. But there is a problem with what is in the bill along with the standard economical appropriations.

Here is the text from Section 1021 of the NDAA 2012:

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 MILITARYFORCE.

(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 subsection (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.

Now, that seems appropriate. The bill goes on to state that:

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

It states there, in section 1022, that unlawful detainment of suspected terrorists/terrorism aids does not extend to US Citizens. What it really means is that normally a person would be detained by local/state/federal law enforcement. But due to the revisions, there can be no formal arrest, trial, or sentence levied.

Lets lay out a situation. Say you are at a Occupy Rally in New York City. An I.C.E. or D.H.S. agent comes up to you and says “You are a terrorist for inciting these destructive riots.” You of course reply with”No I’m not.”

Doesn’t matter. They can take you into custody, lock you up, and levy no formal charges against you. Your family may come to your defense, stating that you are a stand-up individual.

Without a trial, how exactly can you prove them wrong?

This means that if the government determines you are a threat to them, in any way, they can lock you up and throw away the key. Simply by speaking my mind, I can be locked away to rot in the shadows because I don’t believe in what our government is doing. And the crazy thing is, the definition of a terrorist has recently been broadened. Here is a list from the Department Of Defense of characteristics of high-risk individuals, who could eventually pose a terroristic threat:

Speaking out against government Policies

Protesting

Questioning War

Criticizing the government’s targeting of innocent civilians with drones

Asking questions about pollution

Paying for cash at an internet cafe

Asking questions about Wall Street corruption

Holding gold

Creating alternative currencies

Stocking up on more than 7 days worth of food

Having bumper stickers saying things like “Know Your Rights Or Lose Them”

Investigating factory farming

Infringing a copyright

Taking pictures or videos in cities

Talking to police officers

Wearing a hooded sweatshirt with hood up

Driving an unmarked van

Valuing online privacy

Supporting Ron Paul or non-bipartisan candidate

There is also a list of beliefs that could label you as a potential terrorist:

Upholding the beliefs of the Founding Fathers

Being a Christian

Being anti-tax, anti-regulation, or supporting the Gold Standard

Being supportive of individual liberty

Being anti-nuclear

Belief in conspiracy theories

A belief that a person’s “way of life” is under attack, be it personal or national

Belief that God should be in politics

Those who seek to politicize religion

Support political movements for autonomy

Being anti-abortion

Being anti-Catholic

Being anti-Global

Being suspicious of centralized federal authority

Being Nationalistic (Patriotic)

Belief that a person should be prepared in case of attack

Opposing GMOs

Opposing surveillance

Oddly enough, “Being a radical Islam” is not included.

Now, NDAA 2012, specifically sections 1021 and 1022 were ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. Within hours, President Barack Obama filed an emergency appeal to reanalyze the bill. Not a simple appeal, but an Emergency Appeal. This indicates that those sections and its laws are already being used.

If you agree with this scrutinization of NDAA 2012, please, go inform your friends. The mainstream media has buried this under Honey Boo Boo and Kim Kardashian. Read between the lines. Time to wake up.