You are viewing an old blog post! That means that links will be broken, and images may be missing.

February 3, 2012

Congressional Lies about NDAA Kidnapping Law, Part 2

NDAA is the National Defense Authorization Act. Two sections of the bill permit the Kidnapping (arrest and indefinite detention without due process) of both citizens and non-citizens, charged with being tangentially related to terrorist groups or activities.

Members of Congress keep misleading constituents about what the bill actually does. already addressed the lie, “Don’t Worry, the NDAA exempts Americans” back on January 17. We consider that to be Part 1 in our responding to lies series.

The Latest Lie

A DC Downsizer writes, “Senator (blank)’s office is claiming that the NDAA gives the executive no new authority and only codifies a 2001 Supreme Court decision.”

This is supposed to make us feel better?

It doesn’t matter whether the office making this claim realizes they are prevaricating or they’re just ignorant and repeating a fable they’ve been told. Neither explanation of their behavior reflects well on them.

Let’s strip the cleverness. What are they’re ACTUALLY saying?  

“For years, the Executive Branch has usurped and used very similar powers. We, in Congress, have come along and brought the code of law in compliance with these acts. We have merely provided our endorsement and cover to them.”

Now, there’s actually a grain of truth in that statement, when it’s rendered that accurately. The Executive branch was outside the law. So what the Senator’s office is really saying is, “Two wrongs make a right.” 

But this answer is still misleading because this bill does NEW things . . . 

1) For the first time, America was declared part of the “battlefield” in the war on terrorism.

* Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who backed the bill, indicated that the bill “basically say(s) in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield,” and that people can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.”
* Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because “America is part of the battlefield.”

2) Indefinite detention for American citizens was also novel.

Consider the following exchange between him and Senator Rand Paul from the Senate floor . . . 

MR. PAUL: My question would be, under the provisions, would it be possible that an American citizen could be declared an ‘enemy combatant’ and sent to Guantanamo Bay, and detained indefinitely?

MR. McCAIN: I think that as long as that individual, NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE, if they POSE A THREAT to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue the threat.

3) As of yet, no bill calls for total repeal of BOTH offending sections, 1021 and 1022. But there are bills by Senator Diane Feinstein, Ron Paul, and others, calling for modification or repeal of various aspects.

Why would such bills be necessary, and even more important, why are they being resisted, IF, no new power is represented here?

  • Repeal 1021? Well, we don’t really need it because the power already existed, right? 
  • Declare that America is not part of the battlefield, continuing with Posse Comitatus? Why not, since there’s nothing new here?
  • Exempt Americans? Why object, if there’s nothing novel about this law?

By the way, since there’s an office saying that there’s a Supreme Court case, and they are merely “ratifying,” then I’m curious about two more things . . . 

1) What is the decision to which they are referring?

2) What clause in the Constitution permitted either the Executive Branch or the Supreme Court to create a law, and the Congress to come along and “ratify” it? Isn’t this EXPRESSLY the opposite of the Constitutional design, whereby the elected representatives of the people legislate?

I hate to name names because this “Don’t Worry” lying campaign is widespread amongst Congress-criminals. Call your Reps and Senators to find out if they are among the guilty.

Copyright (c) 2012 by Jim Babka. Permission to distribute this blog post for educational purposes is granted, if done with attribution to the author and the, Inc. Permission to use for commercial purposes is denied.

Please share it with others. Please tell your friends that they can receive similar material in the future by subscribing to our free email newsletter, The Downsizer-Dispatch.

If your comment is off-topic for this post, please email us at


Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

© 2008–2019