(Reposted with permission.)
Posted on April 13, 2013 by willyloman
by Scott Creighton
Does this mean the CIA is an "associated force" aligned to al Qaeda by extension and thus anyone who provides support to the CIA can be detained as well?
The administration of the Peace Prize President is looking to send another $10 million dollars to the terrorists destabilizing Syria while expecting you and yours to dutifully accept your sequestration cuts. According to White House spokesman Jay Carney, that means a total of $110 million dollars has been spent giving aid and comfort to a group of mercenaries who have officially aligned themselves with al Qaeda in Iraq. And now they wish to give them more. New Jersey Democrat Senator Robert Menendez says he wants to openly give the al Qaeda linked terrorists some weapons, but we already know we have been doing that through the CIA via proxy states since this destabilization campaign began.
"With help from the C.I.A., Arab governments and Turkey have sharply increased their military aid to Syria's opposition fighters in recent months, expanding a secret airlift of arms and equipment for the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, according to air traffic data, interviews with officials in several countries and the accounts of rebel commanders" New York Times
The story goes that the Global War on Terror is being waged all across the globe these days against our enemy who attacked us on 9/11, al Qaeda. That's the official story at least. Turns out the Global Free Market Wars are actually being waged against anyone who dares stand up to our imperialist interests in their country i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Syria and a host of others not made readily available to the public for lack of proper justification.
It's well know at this point that the justification for the invasion of Iraq was a complete lie as is the ongoing drone war, a.k.a. Automated Death Squads on behalf of our puppet dictators like Musharraf in Pakistan and Saleh in Yemen.
But today's news about the funding of the "rebels" in Syria, like the funding of the "freedom fighters" in Nicaragua back in the Reagan days, brings up an interesting question: can the president, the Secretary of State and the CIA be indefinitely detained by the military under his own unconstitutional NDAA 2012 Act? Remember, Obama himself pushed for the inclusion of these powers in the funding bill even though he pretended to oppose such a constitutional over-reach of authority.
Is it possible that the last best hope we have to restore the constitutional republic that was America is to hoist these globalists on their own petards before they can further solidify their institutional death-grip on democracy world-wide? Have we come to that point and is the prognosis for the future health of the human condition that dire?
I say yes and it is more than that: it is our moral obligation to the future generations of Americans and all the peace loving people of the world. The sickness that we are allowing to infect other nations may not have started with us, but we are carriers and to that end, we have a responsibility to seek treatment no matter how difficult, no matter how painful. We face a global epidemic of ideological cancer which will change the very nature of humanity as we understand it. There may be only one treatment left us.
"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 September11,2001 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]". Wikipedia
This is the key phrase: "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"
al Qaeda as it is constituted these days, is actively engaged in attacks on the Iraqi, Yemeni and Mali governments, destabilizing the situations in those two countries. Iraq's new puppet regime is considered one of our "coalition partners" as is the government of Mali. The French, certainly a coalition partner, is engaged in a battle against the al Qaeda insurgents in Mali. There is no question, history aside, that al Qaeda is currently involved in hostilities against the United States or it's coalition partners. In fact, we are stepping up our military involvement in 35 African nations supposedly as a reaction to threats now being posed by al Qaeda on the continent. al Qaeda could not be MORE actively involved in hostilities targeting us or our coalition partners.
As if they saw this coming, last year Jeh Charles Johnson, General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Defense,gave a speech at Yale Law School in which he apparently tried to blur the lines between helping al Qaeda and "related forces" in order to make just this kind of distinction impossible. The quote below is from the Council on Foreign Relations. Typical that they would be behind an effort to normalize the material support of terrorism via a policy of state sponsored terrorism. Does that mean the Council on Foreign Relations can be detained as well? Can Yale?
"An "associated force," as we interpret the phrase, has two characteristics to it: (1) an organized, armed group that has entered the fight alongside al Qaeda, and (2) is a co-belligerent with al Qaeda in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. In other words, the group must not only be aligned with al Qaeda. It must have also entered the fight against the United States or its coalition partners. Thus, an "associated force" is not any terrorist group in the world that merely embraces the al Qaeda ideology." Jeh Charles Johnson
It seems the administration saw this potential difficulty while they were secretly supplying al Qaeda linked fighters with money, comfort and weapons and they decided to interpret their own unconstitutional law in such a way as to cover their asses.
Their argument is that they are not in violation of this law simply because these terrorists aren't currently engaged in helping al Qaeda fight against the U.S. or it's coalition partners... at the time.
But that doesn't hold up for several reasons.
Giving aid and comfort and weapons to a group who is actively aligned with our enemy strengthens our enemy, whether or not they are engaged in that particular battle in the overall Global War on Terror. Al Qaeda is re-emerging as a global threat according to official sources and this partnership builds their base. No matter how removed the Syria conflict is from Yemen, Afghanistan or the whole of Africa, it strengthens our named enemy, and that weakens us, eventually threatening our troops and those of our coalition partners.
Another way this justification falls short is written right into the language of the amendment:
"It must have also entered the fight against the United States or its coalition partners."
It is well understood that the mercenary terrorists who have been fighting in Syria to destabilize the nation in order to achieve Hillary Clinton's stated objective of regime change, are actually fighters imported, by us mind you, from places like Libya and Iraq where they have, as the section puts it "entered the fight against the United States or its coalition partners"
Even if we take this group of "rebels" on their own merits, without linking them to al Qaeda, they have already entered the fight against us and coalition partners and since these fights continue in their various nations of origin, they are still to be considered enemy combatants.
No matter how you dice it up when you look at it, and keep in mind I fully understand that the CIA has been actively engaged in terrorism since it's inception, the Obama administration is in direct violation of NDAA 2012 section 1021 and according to the law he, his staff and a host of others can be detained indefinitely by the U.S. military for providing support to al Qaeda linked terrorist groups engaged in hostilities toward the U.S. or her coalition partners.
Now if that is the case and I think it can easily be made (at least more easily than someone being arrested and detained for interviewing an insurgent from Yemen) , the question then becomes "who decides?"
Again, that answer is right there in the language of the amendment:
SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.-Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includesthe authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war. NDAA 2012 section 2021
The authority rests in the hands of the military of the United States and as such, under law and military code both, if a commanding officer is behaving in a manner contrary to the interests of the United States and actively engaged in illegal activities, then it is not only allowed by the military code and the rule of law for junior officers to disobey said orders and detain said officer, it is in fact required.
There is nothing under the provisions of military code that says this mandate is limited when said officer is the Commander in Chief.
Though technically Obama as the executive is the head of the military, Sec. 1021 does not specify that ONLY he has the authority to take such action where it is required. That authority is delegated in it's language to the Armed Forces of the United States and were they, the Joint Chiefs, to decide to act, it seems to me they would be acting within the purview of this law.
Would that be considered a military coup?
No. It would be considered an act of accountability, holding the president to the rule of law as he himself instituted it. Certainly in the wake of such and action, the military and civilian investigations would expose the full extent of CIA and State Department coercion with terrorist elements over the past several years and thus the act would be seen as more of a legal action rather than a military one.
As corrupt as the political system has become, many out there still hold faith in some form of correction from this system taking place at a ballot box or with some internal initiative to rout the vipers from the den they have made in D.C. over the past 60 years or so.
I have much less faith in that process these days as many other have lost faith while relentlessly exposing the truth and subsequently watching these perversions becoming more and more normalized as time goes on. The people, the activists, are losing HOPE.
There may only be one avenue to wrest control of this nation back from the vipers and the jackals who intend at all costs to see their New World Order of plutocratic neoliberalism realized and that may be to hoist them on their own petards.
Petard 1 is the use of the unconstitutional NDAA 2012 Sec. 1021 as described above.
Petard 2 is to use their own monster against them meaning the Patriot Act and the enhanced security state to obtain records of their treason and conspiracy to destabilize this nation in multiple ways and to hold them responsible for it
Petard 3 is to use the vast military complex they have created against them and to fortify alliances with nations that are currently standing opposed to the global cabal of the New World Order Coalition.
This is not a military coup that I advocate, it is the letter of the law. It is perhaps the last decent chance of restoring accountability in the face of growing lawlessness and chaos. The lies and schemes of the past few decades, the deregulation of the too big to jail entities that rule this nation and soon the world, have left this nation in tatters in such a way as NEVER been accomplished by any other enemy of this State of the Union. This is not simply a class war, though that is part of it, it is an all-out assault on the democratic republican ideal this nation was founded upon and that which the military is sworn to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic.