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

By End the Lie

Representative Jeff Landry (R-LA)

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.

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

  1. Ona December 24, 2011 at 2:43 PM

    I am not as hopeful or positive regarding Rep. Landry’s intentions. On the congressional voting record, note that Landry voted “aye” for NDAA 2012 with the stripping of constitutional rights from citizens and legal aliens. My pragmatic view finds that his current maneuver more likely falls in the “CYA” and “confuse and divert your constituents” categories than sincere concern for the abrogation of due process by NDAA 2012. Landry clearly sided with the other elected traitors in the vote on this legislation.

    Reply
  2. special ed January 12, 2012 at 1:13 PM

    I enjoy your site, and concur with many of your views, however I view all who voted AYE as traitors to our nation. God Bless and continue the fight.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Advertise on End the Lie

Would you like to have your business or service exposed to thousands of people every day here at End the Lie? We have a wide variety of options available all at unbeatable prices. At the same time you will be supporting a truth-oriented alternative news outlet as well as hardworking independent journalists across the United States and the world.

If you would like to know more please email us and please be sure to include the details of what you are advertising, what your budget is and what type of advertising format you are looking for, including size(s), length of advertising period and any other pertinent details. The more information you give us, the more accurate the quote will be. We might also be able to work out some unique advertising tailored to your needs so feel free to contact us with questions and ideas.

Note: our advertisers have absolutely no input in what we cover or how we cover it. If this is problematic, you might want to seek out another news outlet. Here at End the Lie we put the truth first and thus no sponsor will be able to control our content. We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone and we will not advertise pornography, gambling, drugs, alcohol, tobacco or anything that might otherwise be illegal.