Environmentalists Against War
Home | Say NO! To War | Action! | Information | Media Center | Who We Are

 

 

Senators Targeted for Recall after Voting to Annul Basic Constitutional Rights


December 31, 2011
Ralph Lopez / Oath Keepers & Lindy Greene / IndyBay.org

Moving quickly on Christmas Day after the US Senate voted 86 - 14 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act, which allows for the indefinite military detention of US citizens without charge or trial, Montanans have announced the launch of recall campaigns against Senators Max Baucus and Jonathan Tester, and Congressman Denny Reberg, who all voted for the bill.

http://alturl.com/amftr

Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention
Ralph Lopez / Oath Keepers
Disclaimer: The author is a volunteer press contact for this campaign.


MONTANA (December 25, 2011) -- Moving quickly on Christmas Day after the US Senate voted 86 - 14 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA), which allows for the indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial, Montanans have announced the launch of recall campaigns against Senators Max Baucus and Jonathan Tester, and Congressman Denny Reberg, who all voted for the bill.

Montana is one of nine states with provisions that say that the right of recall extends to recalling members of its federal congressional delegation, pursuant to Montana Code 2-16-603, on the grounds of physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of certain felony offenses.

Section 2 of Montana Code 2-16-603 reads:
"(2) A public officer holding an elective office may be recalled by the qualified electors entitled to vote for the elective officer's successor."

The website Ballotpedia.org cites eight other states, which allow for the recall of elected federal officials: Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, and Wisconsin. New Jersey's federal recall law was struck down when a NJ state judge ruled that "the federal Constitution does not allow states the power to recall US senators," despite the fact the Constitution explicitly allows, by not disallowing ("prohibited" in the Tenth Amendment,) the states the power to recall US senators and congressmen:
"The powers not...prohibited...are reserved to the States...or to the people." -- Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution.

Montana law requires grounds for recall to be stated which show conformity to the allowed grounds. The recall drive makes the following points:

1. "The Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees all U.S citizens: "a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."

2. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA 2011) permanently abolishes the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, "for the duration of hostilities" in the War on Terror, which was defined by President George W. Bush as "task which does not end" to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.

3. Those who voted Aye on December 15th, 2011, Bill of Rights Day, for NDAA 2011 have attempted to grant powers which cannot be granted, which violate both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

4. The Montana Recall Act stipulates that officials including US senators can only be recalled for physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of a felony offense.

5. Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act reads in substance:
"Congress affirms that the authority of the President to detain … A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda...or associated forces...including any person who has...directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces... The disposition of a person...may include... Detention...without trial until the end of the hostilities..."

6. "Substantial support" of an "associated force" may imply citizens engaged in innocuous, First Amendment activities. Direct support of such hostilities in aid of enemy forces may be construed as free speech opposition to US government policies, aid to civilians, or acts of civil disobedience.

7. Section 1021 reads: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law." But "existing law" may be construed to refer to Padilla v. Rumsfeld in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the government's claim of authority to hold Americans arrested on American soil indefinitely.

8. Thus Senators Bacus, Tester, and Congressman Rehberg who voted Aye on December 15th, 2011, Bill of Rights Day, for NDAA 2011 have violated his Oath of Office to protect and defend the US Constitution which guarantees all citizens the right to a jury trial "In all criminal prosecutions."

Montana residents William Crain and Stewart Rhodes are spearheading the drive. Mr. Crain is an artist. Mr. Rhodes is an attorney, Yale Law School graduate, and the national president of the organization Oath Keepers, who are military and law enforcement officers, both former and active duty, who vow to uphold their Oath to the US Constitution and to disobey illegal orders which constitute attacks on their fellow citizens. Rhodes said:

"These politicians from both parties betrayed our trust, and violated the oath they took to defend the Constitution. It's not about the left or right, it's about our Bill of Rights. Without the Bill of Rights, there is no America. It is the Crown Jewel of our Constitution, and the high-water mark of Western Civilization."

Rhodes noted that:
"Two time Medal of Honor winner Marine General Smedley Butler once said "There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights." Time to fight. "

Butler famously ended his career as a Marine General by touring the country with his speech and book denouncing war, War is a Racket. Butler confessed that he had spent most of his life as a "high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers...a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism..."

Eighteen states at present have recall laws, most of which do not apply to federal officials. For these and other states to recall federal officials, state legislatures would have to first pass or amend such laws.

Rising on the House floor to oppose the bill based on the military detention provisions for Americans, Rep. Tom McClintock said before the House vote:
" Yoday, we who have sworn fealty to that Constitution sit to consider a bill that affirms a power contained in no law and that has the full potential to crack the very foundation of American liberty."

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said in opposing the final NDAA:
"This bill also contains misguided provisions that in the name of fighting terrorism essentially authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charges."

And in a New York Times op-ed piece by two retired four-star US Marine generals, Charles Krulak and Joseph Hoar, Krulak and Hoar said that "Due process would be a thing of the past."

Rep. Justin Amash warned the NDAA was "carefully crafted to mislead the public," The deceptions in the language of the NDAA, intended to allow defenders to argue that the provisions do not apply to American citizens, center around some of the wording in Sections 1021 and 1022. Rep. Tom McClintock opposed the bill on the House floor and said in a speech:

[The NDAA] specifically affirms that the President has the authority to deny due process to any American it charges with "substantially supporting al Qaeda, the Taliban or any 'associated forces'" -- whatever that means.

Would "substantial support" of an "associated force," mean linking a Website to a Website that links to a Website affiliated with al-Qaeda? We don't know.

And Section 1022 "(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS" states:
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.-The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

However, although the section says it is not "required" that US citizens be held in military detention, it is nevertheless "allowed."

Most worrisome, all accusations rest solely on the word of the government, with no witnesses, evidence, or any other form of due process available when the government is either wrong or lying.

Montana would be the first recall drive to be launched as a result of the vote for the NDAA military detentions provisions. A number of Facebook pages appeared after the passage of the bill from locations across the country.

References:
Facebook: "Recall Every Congressman Who Voted for the NDAA"
"Recalling Senators and Congressmen" (PDF)
"How to Recall US Senators and Congressmen"

UPDATE:
In Montana [Oath Keepers] will be filing for a recall of ALL of Montana's Congressional Delegation, including Republican Denny Rehberg, since all three of them voted for the NDAA of 2012, which contains provisions authorizing military detention and trial of US citizens and lawful residents. The two Democratic Senators, Tester and Baucus, voted for it, but so did the Republican Congressman Rehberg. It's not about left or right. It's about our Bill of Rights. Montana Oath Keepers and Oath Keepers national will lead this campaign to recall two Montana Senators and one Montana Representative who committed treason against the people of Montana and of America in voting for the NDAA of 2011.

William Crain and Stewart Rhodes.
Elias Alias, president, Montana Oath Keepers, and member, Oath Keepers national Board of Directors



National Defense Authorization Act
Commentary by Lindy Greene / IndyBay.org

(December 24, 2011) -- The US government feels the need to defend itself against its own citizens. They are waking up to the going-on of the 1%.

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 US 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 US 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 US 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 US 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!

© 2000–2011 San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center.

In accordance with Title 17 USC. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

back

 

 

Stay Connected
Sign up to receive our weekly updates. We promise not to sell, trade or give away your email address.
Email Address:
Full Name:
 

 

Search Environmentalists Against War website

 

Home | Say NO! To War | Action! | Information | Media Center | Who We Are