NDAA Updated | Eastern North Carolina Now

   Publisher's note: This anti-NDAA article first appeared in the Beaufort Observer a few weeks ago, with appropriate updates. Its sequel will be published tomorrow, March 25, 2012.

   March 01, 2012

    We recently posted an article entitled Opposition grows to the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act-NDAA that did not get nearly as many hits as we expected. So we'll follow it up with this commentary.

    Two sections in an omnibus authorization bill to run the Department of Defense effectively repealed major portions of the United States Constitution and those of many of the states. Those two sections (1021 and 1022) provide that an American can be "detained" by the military if there is reason to believe the person, even an American citizen within the United States, is engaged or about to be engaged in terrorism. There is not provision to insure that the detention can be reviewed by a court to determine if the person is being held legally (Habeas Corpus) nor does it guarantee a speedy trial by jury to determine whether the citizen is guilty. There's more, much more as is explained at the link above in in the links contained in the article.

    We called Senator Burr's office to find out why he voted for the NDAA. The explanation was simple: To support keeping the military operating. That was all well and good with us, but then we asked: "Did Sen. Burr seek to amend the bill to strip out Sections 1021 and 1022 or clarify them to guarantee the application of the Bill of Rights to them?" The answer was "no."

    We are appalled. You should be too. In fact EVERY American should not only be appalled but should joint in the movement to see that these two sections are repealed.

    Here's what we urge you to do. Contact your state legislators and ask them to support a bill to nullify Sections 1021 and 1022 and to prohibit any state employee from assisting in their enforcement. That bill will be introduced in the May short session but will take a procedural vote to have it considered. Every legislator should vote to consider it and then vote to nullify the application of those sections in North Carolina.

    Nullification has not been used to any significant extent since the Civil War. But we feel strongly that the time has come that it is imperative that the power of the Federal government be brought in check and to insure that the original balance of powers between the states and the national government is restored.

    If we are not going to stand up to the trampling of the Bill of Rights then when on earth are we ever going to take a stand?

    Please learn about this issue and then get involved to protect the Bill of Rights.

    Click here to read about how Virginia is handlling this issue.

    3-3-12 UPDATE

    We received the following comment on March 2 from David Ward, Sen. Burr's press person as a Letter To The Editor. We are posting it here to afford it more expsure. We appreciate Mr. Ward's response.
I read with great disappointment an editorial in your paper last week that chastised me for my vote on the National Defense Authorization Act. I welcome the opportunity to set the record straight after your baseless attack on my reasons for voting the way I did. Your claim that this bill allows for the suspension of habeas corpus is simply incorrect. That would be unconstitutional, and Section 1021 makes it clear that United States citizens cannot be held in military custody without judicial process. Section 1022 of the NDAA, which concerns military custody for a narrow subset of foreign al-Qaeda terrorists, has been the subject of much misinformation. Contrary to claims that United States citizens will be picked up and put into military detention, this section makes clear that the detention requirement applies only to those foreign al Qaeda members who have participated in planning or carrying out an attack against the United States. In fact, section 1022 explicitly states that there is no requirement to detain United States citizens. Because these sections ensure that the most dangerous foreign al Qaeda terrorists will be detained, they are essential to our national security. They do not put American citizens at risk of being unlawfully detained.

   3-4-12 UPDATE

    Jeff Lewis, National Director, Patriot Coalition, co-founder, The Intolerable Acts ACTION CENTER, has responded to Sen. Burr's office's response to this article. Click here to download his response.

    We have invited Mr. Ward to react to Mr. Lewis' detailed response, not only to Mr. Ward's comments but more specifically to each of the issues Mr. Lewis raises.

    Commentary

    We stand by our expression that this issue is of supreme importance to every citizen of the United States. We are appalled that any representative in Washington would defend their vote for NDAA with these provisions included without full debate and careful consideration of the consequences and implications of the NDAA as passed. An amendment was offered by Sen. Udall during the Senate debate to strip the dangerous provisions from the bill but this was overwhelmingly defeated. As we read it, the Udall amendment would simply have separated the dangerous provisions from the main bill to allow the main bill, which was essentially to provide funding authorization for the military, to be voted on without the unconstitutional provisions. They could then have been considered as a separate bill. Hopefully, with full hearings those provisions would have been defeated.

    Let us make our position clear. We agree with Mr. Lewis that this is a dangerous violation of the U. S. Constitution and violates many state constitutions as well. No representative should have voted for the NDAA with these provisions included. We believe Mr. Lewis makes a compelling case, far in excess of Mr. Ward's explanation to justify Sen. Burr's votes. We therefore call upon Sen. Burr and all of our representatives to immediately repeal the objectionable provisions and we call upon the North Carolina Legislature to adopt the resolution nullifying the application of the NDAA's objectionable provisions to North Carolina.