Amidst a sea of apathy, one RI representative steps up against the NDAA and indefinite detention
By Madison Ruppert
Editor of End the Lie
While nearly every state and all of their representatives remain disturbingly silent on the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA) and the indefinite detention provisions contained therein, one Rhode Island Representative, Daniel P. Gordon Jr., has stepped up to the plate in defense of our most essential rights.
Gordon has drafted a resolution which expresses his opposition to the NDAA which “suspended habeas corpus and civil liberties” under Section 1021, an issue which I have been covering in great detail.
Apparently Gordon has not been duped or buffaloed into believing (erroneously, I might add) that the NDAA cannot and will not be used against American citizens, unlike far too many others, including some people I have had extended email conversations with.
In reaction to this widespread misinformation and disinformation, I wrote an article which points out some of the flaws in the logic which is used in an attempt to shut down those brave Americans who are standing up to this legislation and calling it what it is.
The piece was written before Obama signed the final version into law on December 31, 2011, but the points still stand and much of the same arguments are still used to this day, despite the fact that they are easily shot down by even the most remotely informed individual who hasn’t been brainwashed into thinking that the government can do no wrong.
“Given the fact that the constitutions of Rhode Island and that of the United States are replete with guarantees of individual liberties, right to habeus corpus, and right to freedom of speech, the offending sections of that law are repugnant to the sensibilities of anyone [who] has a basic understanding of the foundation of this country,” he said.
Indeed these are all repeatedly guaranteed and protected by these critical documents, however, the continual infringement on these rights and the evisceration of these documents has become an ugly reality.
“When I took the oath of office, I swore that I would support the constitutions of Rhode Island and the United States. And before one constituent of mine is snatched up in the dead of night, without due process under our laws, they’ll have to pry those documents from my cold dead hands,” Gordon said.
Here Gordon acknowledges something which I have been saying since the Senate first passed S. 1867 with a disturbing 93% majority.
Every single individual that voted for this legislation which so egregiously conflicts with our constitutionally guaranteed rights is nothing short of a traitor, and it’s heartening to see at least one politician realizing this, even if it is just at a state level.
The New American cites some other members of the opposition to the NDAA, including Pastor Chuck Baldwin, the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party, who in fact has quoted my work in the past, for which I am grateful.
“Americans should realize that, coupled with the Patriot Act, the NDAA, 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 US citizens under military rule,” Baldwin rightly stated.
However, I have some serious reservations with the New American article due to the fact that they point to “Section 2012″ which is not the section in question and furthermore seem to believe that California Senator Dianne Feinstein is part of the NDAA’s opposition.
While Feinstein indeed introduced an Amendment which would protect American citizens, it didn’t pass and Feinstein merely issued some hollow platitudes in an attempt to appear less traitorous than she actually is.
“I object to holding American citizens without trial,” Feinstein said. This is similar to Obama’s hollow signing statements which mean absolutely nothing.
Like Obama who claimed to be against the indefinite detention of American citizens, Feinstein claimed to hold the same position while in fact she voted for S. 1867.
This is pure rhetoric and has absolutely no bearing on the actual protection of our rights in the slightest.
Gordon is attempting to clear up some of the most contested language in the NDAA Section 1021, specifically the line which reads, “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.”
People claim this is proof that the NDAA’s indefinite detention provisions cannot be used against Americans but unfortunately this couldn’t be further off the mark.
This is rightly highlighted by the New American when they point to the executive powers claimed by George W. Bush in the wake of the tragic events of September 11, 2001.
These executive powers included the ability to hold American citizens without trial simply by accusing them of being terrorists, not to mention indefinite detention, warrantless wiretapping and far too many other egregious breaches of our liberties to recount here.
The Senate merely codified these executive powers which had remained in a kind of legal gray area with a 99-1 vote.
The New American erroneously says that this leaves “the question open,” when in fact this closes the question as Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, made clear on the floor.
I emphasized these statements quite early on and they are continuously ignored by people who refuse to realize what the NDAA actually means.
One individual I had a drawn-out email conversation with on this subject was unable to reconcile his preconceived notions with the language of the NDAA and the statements of Senator Graham so instead of addressing Graham’s statements on the floor, he instead said that Graham just didn’t know what he was talking about.
As you can see in one of my earliest articles on the legislation, Graham clearly said that these indefinite detention provisions in fact can be used against American citizens and the precedent has already been set by the cases of Hamdi and Padilla.
Speaking about S. 1867, the final version of the Senate bill before it was reconciled with H.R. 1540, Graham said, on the floor of the Senate no less, “In summary here, [section] 1032, the military custody provision, which has waivers and a lot of flexibility doesn’t apply to American citizens. [Section] 1031, the statement of authority to detain does apply to American citizens, and it designates the world as the battlefield including the homeland.”
If you find this hard to believe, which many do, then do yourself a favor and watch the clip directly from C-SPAN in which Graham shoots down the hollow rhetoric leveraged by far too many pundits, politicians, and everyday people in an attempt to convince themselves that the NDAA cannot and will not be used against us, the American people.
The problem here is that people are just not familiar with these precedents and the executive powers already claimed, such as the right to assassinate American citizens without having to explain what allows them to do so.
As I have repeatedly said in my articles and in my various radio appearances, the real danger of the NDAA is that it explicitly codifies these powers and makes it is either impossible or at least extremely difficult to fight back against the detention.
Gordon is now in the process of bringing his resolution to his colleagues in the state legislature in order to hopefully gain their support for the defense and protection of the rights of Americans.
Unfortunately, Gordon states that he is unaware of a single other representative in any state making a similar attempt at actually doing their job and upholding their oath of office.
“That incremental creeping of tyranny from the federal government has been going on for the past decade. No one is standing up and saying no,” Gordon rightfully stated.
If Gordon’s laudable effort is successful and Rhode Island erects some kind of protections for their residents against a ludicrously tyrannical federal government, I might actually consider uprooting myself and moving there in order to avoid having my door kicked down, a black bag thrown over my head, and sedative drugs injected into my blood stream just to wake up in a black site somewhere in the United States or in any foreign country or even in the hands of any foreign entity anywhere in the world.
Gordon should be commended for his efforts. If you live in Rhode Island, I beg of you: support Gordon’s effort and pressure your own representative to back Gordon’s resolution and uphold their oath of office.
Make it clear to them that a tyrannical government never lasts indefinitely and eventually the traitors are held accountable for their actions, and it is never pretty.