Do sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) really allow the President to kidnap American citizens?
I say yes, but many in Congress say no. And they support their claim by quoting some tricky wording from the law. This tactic is convincing people, and that has me worried. I think this is dangerous and needs to be countered.
Please consider my pitch for a plan to do that.
I'll tell you . . .
- How the establishment is deceiving itself, as well as the public
- Tell you how two members of Congress and one famous "think thank" are mishandling this issue
- Confront the question "Is DownsizeDC.org wrong about this controversy?"
- Show how we can win this debate using the brainpower of the same legal team that delivered the influential brief in the Jones case
- How this might influence a lawsuit we've been asked to support, involving a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist
Ready? Here we go . . .
Is History Repeating? Or at Least Rhyming?
The prelude to the Iraq invasion is the last time I can remember our gangster-politicians lying with such organized intensity. Back then, as former Rep. John Hostettler has written, many in Congress were practically begging to be conned by the Bush administration. They desperately wanted to believe, and so they did -- and the fact that they believed helped convince the American people too. The same thing is happening now.
Congress has convinced itself that they didn't legalize Presidential kidnapping, and now they're using this self-deception to scam the public. Here are two telling examples . . .
Rep. Allen West swore in a public speech that he could prove that the NDAA didn't permit Presidential kidnapping (VIdeo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSMOYVhapTE). I could have used his own argument to prove him wrong, had I been there. But I wasn't there, so the audience went away believing him.
Or take the case of Rep. Sandy Adams. She's now reprinting ALL of Section 1021 in her replies to constituents. She's doing this because there's a line in that section that looks like it prohibits the President from kidnapping American citizens. But this tricky wording doesn't really do what it appears to do! You have to carefully ponder the logic of both sections, 1021 and 1022, to understand what the "law" really does.
Do you think Ms. Adams, or anyone else in Congress has done that? I don't. We know they don't "read their bills." And I think the authors of this law counted on that.
The reprinting or quoting of the bill is an aggravating tactic. It gives an air of credibility, even if the analysis that follows is entirely misguided or wrong. Sadly, even major think tanks are joining this chorus of error . . .
The Heritage Foundation retained lawyers to write a detailed analysis arguing that Americans have nothing to fear from this bill, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/02/facts-about-the-national-defense-authorization-act-and-military-detention-of-us-citizens during this or any future presidency. So . . .
Is Downsize DC Wrong?
People know politicians lie. Even so, when they hear claims from multiple establishment sources they still have to wonder if DownsizeDC.org has gotten its facts right. We've tried to make our case with articles like these . . .
- How the New Indefinite Detention Provisions can be used on Americans
- Congressional Lies about NDAA Kidnapping Law, Part 2
But who is the public more likely to believe -- the scrappy staff at DownsizeDC.org, or the lawyers from Heritage? I think it's time to sing that old Warren Zevon song . . .
Send lawyers, guns, and money.
We want to pit our lawyers against Congress and Heritage, and then share the result with the media and the public. And we have the right guys over at William J. Olson, PC. They're so good that they won't even need Mr. Zevon's guns. For instance . . .
The Olson team worked directly with Bob Marshall on his Virginia bill to withdraw state employees and facilities from any coordination or complicity with military kidnappings within Virginia. So the NDAA kidnapping provisions are already very much on the Olson team's mind.
We have a great deal of confidence in them.
- Their other clients include the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (often called, GATA) and Gun Owners of America.
- They wrote the Antoine Jones brief to the Supreme Court that influenced a landmark decision earlier this year.
- They also helped us write the Read the Bills Act, the Write the Laws Act, and the now-sponsored One Subject at a Time Act.
Now I want to COMMISSION them to write a LEGAL analysis that refutes the Heritage Foundation, as well as the misled and misleading members of Congress. This analysis will have four uses. We will . . .
1) Share it with the public and with other organizations. We suspect this report will be popular with other groups who are also fighting this battle.
2) Educate and correct Congress.
3) Make it available to the media -- they're also confused about this issue.
4) Use it for potential legal briefs in NDAA cases that are certain to arise.
Can we fight NDAA in the courts?
We've been invited to participate in a lawsuit initiated by Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Christopher Hedges. You can learn more about why he's challenging Sections 1021 and 1022 in an article titled, "Why I'm Suing Barack Obama."
His article describes yet another possible way that some creative bureaucrat, prosecutor, or politician can go beyond alleged Congressional intent. You'll see how these offensive sections can be applied to various kinds of non-terrorists, including American citizens!
Regarding possible legal action, we're weighing our options. But first we must . . .
Create a crystal clear case for our contention that Sections 1021 and 1022 really do legalize kidnapping by the President.
I think the document we intend to create will serve everyone who is fighting Sections 1021 and 1022. It will benefit lawsuits, nullification initiatives in the states, and repeal efforts at the federal level.
I'm asking DC Downsizers to make this possible.
Of course, we still have to pay our continuing monthly budget as well. This project is ON TOP of that. That's why we need many donors, plus at least one contributor of $1,000 or more.
Our main purpose for this will be in legislative battles. We need the flexibility to use this report politically. That's why we're asking that contributions be made to DownsizeDC.org for this project.
DownsizeDC.org accepts . . .
- American Express
- And there's even a form for mailing a check
However, if you're in the unique position where you itemize your taxes and you need a charitable deduction, you can make your contribution to the Downsize DC Foundation.
The attorneys are on standby, ready to roll. I'm eager to get them started.
We're counting on you.
& Downsize DC Foundation