The NDAA, a Legal Analysis
The N.D.A.A, or the National Defense Authorization Act is not what you think it is. It’s worse. To put it in emotional terms the NDAA is the mark of living under tyranny. You now can be detained, or murdered by your government without the due process rights as stipulated in the Constitution. However, the Constitutional scholars in the Justice Department (you know the ones who have taken an oath to uphold and defend the constitution) believe that the N.D.A.A. is entirely Constitutional and doesn’t violate our rights. Inspires confidence. Doesn’t it?
Sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has caused a great deal of controversy. Congressmen all over the nation have defended their vote in favor of these sections in spite of the criticism that these sections allow the President to detain US Citizens indefinitely. These Congressmen have said over and over again, with great vigor, that these sections specifically exclude US Citizens. They justify their position by quoting language from these sections that many experts, from all across the political spectrum, believe to be vague and potentially dangerous.
In an effort to shed light on these highly controversial sections, I have created a video presentation that will walk the viewer through these sections.
I am hoping that We The People will become better informed about these potentially dangerous sections and in turn, educate our elected representatives so that we can all work together to secure the blessings of Liberty for our Posterity.
Many have said that these provisions are necessary to fight terrorism. Terrorism or not, Americans are entitled to Constitutional protections and simply invoking the term terrorism should not nullify the age-old right to due process. We should never trade Liberty for security. In the words of William Pitt: “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
Please stand for Liberty. Share this video with all who will hear and even with those who appear disinterested. Liberty is worth the inconvenience. It is not our Liberty, it belongs to our future.