National Defense Authorization Act

I'd like to preface this essay with the reminder that the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution mandates that no American citizen can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. There are no codicils, exceptions, extenuating circumstances, exclusions, or other special conditions appended to or encoded within this declaration. It applies uniformly, whether you are guilty of jaywalking or "working with terrorists."

Congress' most virulent assault on constitutional protections and safeguards is the recent National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It passed the House on December 14 - and, one day later, the Senate. It establishes the entire world, including domestic soil, as "part of the battlefield" and allows the U.S. military to take American citizens into custody and hold them indefinitely without charge or trial if they are "suspected of terrorism." For the moment, it appears to be restricted to those believed to be supporting, enabling, or interacting with Al Qaeda.

But let's take a little detour here and look at how the government works. It scuttles your civil liberties in increments. First, only foreign "terror suspects" could be held indefinitely without due process. Then the policy expanded to include American citizens overseas "suspected of terrorism." Now, it applies to Americans within the United States borders. And if you are thinking that you don't care about people accused of terrorism, I advance two caveats: It could easily be you so indicted for protesting or speaking; and, when you permit the abridgement of one group's rights, all groups eventually fall under the same umbrella. I'm not a lawyer, but it is my conviction that anyone in U.S. custody for any reason should have access to its legal system and be able to seek refuge under the Constitution's wing.

The United States government feels that it has to defend itself against its own citizens. They are emerging from their long period of slumber to become conscious of the immoral and illegal machinations of the 1% as it impoverishes and disenfranchises the 99% at home and abroad. The government needs to shield itself against the greatest threat to any police state: revolution. It is my conviction that political dissenters are and always have been the true intended targets of indeterminate detention. Imagine the chilling effect on one's inclination to exercise his or her First Amendment rights as the fear of police brutality is superseded by that of arbitrary life imprisonment.

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican from South Carolina, is one of the shameful architects of the NDAA. And here's the real slap in the face: Congress put through this evisceration of the Constitution on the 220th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. Other writers are using the word "ironic" to refer to this occurrence. My choice would be "deliberate."

Now, I want you to sit back, close your eyes, and imagine yourself sitting in a small cell in a U.S. federal prison. All you did was attend an anti-war demonstration, say something negative online about the government, or publish an article such as this. You ask the guard (er, I mean "specialist"), "What are the charges against me?" He answers, "There are none." You inquire, "When will I get out?" He replies, "You will never get out." Your final incredulous question is, "How can I be incarcerated for life if I'm not charged with any crime?" How, indeed.

What I don't understand is that the people who promote and implement police state tyrannies are so cocksure that such could never ultimately affect them or their loved ones. Is it impossible, for example, to conceive that the child of one of the proponents of indeterminate detention could grow up to become a political activist or commentator and be targeted by the very bill so obsequiously made law by his or her parental thrall to the 1%?

Remember, Obama has to feign service to and representation of the American citizenry. After all, his oath of office does require such a pledge and the defense of the Constitution against all comers, foreign and domestic. So, he donned his actor's hat and threatened to veto the NDAA. But he knew he would ultimately go along with it in deference to his corporate and bankster re-election campaign handlers. (What if his own two daughters are future political activists?)

Maybe there is some real "terrorism" in the world - but, as far as I can see, most of it's incited and manufactured by the U.S. government. How would you like to have foreign soldiers occupy your country, kill your family and friends, and steal your nation's resources? Would you sit quietly by or become radicalized and fight back? 9-11 was an obvious false flag op designed precisely to launch perennial war and implement an Orwellian police state. The United States is gone. It no longer exists. The 1% have orchestrated and carried out a very real legislative and economic coup d-etat.

If not for the false flag, we'd have no flag at all.

Soon, you and I will be labeled "terrorists" for daring to stand up and speak out against the police state. There will be FEMA camps, gas chambers, and federal prisons in store for the likes of us. See you there!