How Did Obama Get the Power to Arrest, Indefinitely Detain, Deport & Kill U.S. Citizens? With Drones or Otherwise? Here’s How:
Several people have asked for me to show them the legislation that allows Obama, one man, to arrest , detain, deport & kill U.S. Citizens with the U.S. Military on our own home soil WITHOUT due process. So, here you go. Fully referenced for your perusal.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force  is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all “necessary and appropriate force” against those whom he determined “planned, authorized, committed or aided” the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.
This resulted in ONE MAN, the President to determine IF someone did these things. Note that no restriction or verification of his judgement is outlined here. That is because there IS no limit or verification. THAT is the problem.
George Bush created the term, ‘Enemy Combatant’ and was granted full power to determine if someone was doing these things. Also, the wording, ‘all necessary and appropriate force’, indicates the ability to kill that person. It also allows ANY kind of force to be used, including drones. Please note that no restriction or oversight is required of the president when he makes this decision. AND no limitation on the term, ‘Appropriate Force’ is included. That is because there IS no oversight and no limits. THIS is the problem.
The detention sections of the NDAA begin by “affirm[ing]” that the authority of the President under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), a joint resolution passed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, includes the power to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person (including a U.S. citizen) “who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners”, and anyone who commits a “belligerent act” against the U.S. or its coalition allies in aid of such enemy forces, under the law of war, “without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]”. The text authorizes trial by military tribunal, or “transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin”, or transfer to “any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity”.
- By AFFIRMING the AUMF in the context of authorization of arresting U.S. citizens on the HOMELAND, this allows certain other truths and powers to the executive office. First, when you say that the military can arrest U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, you are also authorizing the force necessary to arrest them. That means that if a U.S. Citizen rightfully resists arrest, they can be KILLED as a response. DETENTION equals arrest. ARREST equals force. Use of FORCE equals the military having the ability to kill you if you resist. They can claim that you were a danger at the moment. When you tie the legal privileges of this new power, you have 1) the claim that the United States is a legal ‘battlefield’. This allows 2) the use of military force against terrorists on U.S. soil 3) The military can arrest a U.S. citizen without due process as due process is upheld in CIVILIAN courts. The moment the president can deem an individual an ‘enemy combatant’ (thank Georgie for that) , he can remove them from their civilian rights. Thus, 4) A president can tell the MILITARY (not the police) to arrest you without due process. They can then deport you to overseas facilities and DENY you any kind of right to invoke the inalienable rights stated in the Bill of Rights. and 5) If you try to resist arrest, by definition, they can KILL you.
- This provision allows for the use of the military against U.S. citizens on American soil- it claims that our home soil is a ‘battle field’.
- Please note that the wording ‘and anyone who commits a belligerent act against the U.S.’ is not limited in any way. No definition for this is provided. That leaves the interpretation of what a ‘belligerent act’ up to ONE MAN, the president who has been given the power to say who an ‘enemy combatant is.
- Please note that ‘without trial, until the end of hostilities’ is also not limited or defined in any way. As we are not officially at war (Congress never declared a war), this can literally be forever.
An amendment to the Act that would have replaced current text with a requirement for executive clarification of detention authorities was rejected by the Senate. According to Senator Levin, “the language which precluded the application of section 1031 to American Citizens was in the bill that we originally approved in the Armed Services Committee and the Administration asked us to remove the language which says that US Citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section”. The Senator refers to section 1021 as “1031” because it was section 1031 at the time of his speaking.
- Obama, himself, refused to sign the bill until the following language was included in NDAA 2012: “ (including a U.S. citizen)“
The Act was strongly opposed by the ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, The Center for Constitutional Rights, the Cato Institute, Reason Magazine and The Council on American-Islamic Relations, and was criticized in editorials published in The New York Times and other news organizations.
The American Civil Liberties Union has stated that “While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had ‘serious reservations’ about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use the authorities granted by the NDAA.” and, despite claims to the contrary, “The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision… [without] temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.” The ACLU also maintains that “the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.”
Additional INFORMATION concerning Benghazi and NDAA 2012:
This portion of the bill was struck down by Federal Judge Kathleen Forrest in May of 2012. On Sept. 12, our Benghazi embassy was attacked. On Sept. 12, Judge Forrest FINALIZED her decision that stuck this language down as ‘unconstitutional’ which would deny Obama ALL of the above powers. On Sept. 17, when the entire world was looking at Benghazi and while everyone was stilled dazed and confused- when other embassies were being attacked and uprisings were occurring across the Middle East, the US Justice Department (Eric Holder) asked for an EMERGENCY STAY on that order due to the spreading violence of the Benghazi attacks. This was NOT reported anywhere. No one even knew it was happening. Mere hours later, US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Judge Raymond Lohier agreed to intervene and place a hold on Judge Forrest’s injunction. In other words, Holder asked a new federal judge to reinstate Obama’s power to arrest U.S. citizens on American soil with the military and without due process. They used the Benghazi violence to get their unconstitutional powers back! No one noticed because of the Benghazi attack. This was no accident. The evidence shows that Obama refused to sign NDAA 2012 until special language was ADDED which allow the military to arrest, without due process, ‘American Citizens.’ This power grab was struck down by a federal judge. Our embassy in Benghazi exploded the DAY BEFORE the judge’s ruling could be finalized. Five days after after Benghazi, Eric Holder demanded that her decision by ‘stayed’ BECAUSE of Benghazi. And Obama GOT HIS POWER BACK. Remarkable coincidence? I think not.
For a general review of the bill and the events that took place around it:
Federal Judge Forrest Strikes forces a temporary injunction on NDAA 2012 so that she can consider the constitutionality of NDAA 2012.
Federal Judge Forrest strikes down section 1021 down as ‘unconstitutional’ on Sept. 13, 2012
Eric Holder demands and gets an indefinite stay on Judge Forrest’s final ruling 5 days after the Benghazi attack and BECAUSE of the Benghazi attack.