Forum Post: In Post-NDAA Amerika, What is a Terrorist and Who Can Make You Disappear by Calling You One?
Posted 12 years ago on Feb. 25, 2012, 8:11 a.m. EST by ironboltbruce
(371)
from Miami, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
IN POST NDAA AMERIKA, WHAT IS A TERRORIST AND WHO CAN MAKE YOU DISAPPEAR BY CALLING YOU ONE?
Since corporate fascist puppet president Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 into law this past New Year's Eve (NDAA: Public Law 112-81), the powers of indefinite detention claimed under the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force Act (AUMF: Public Law 107-40) have been codified. Now the mere suspicion of being a "terrorist" is sufficient grounds for an American citizen - on American soil - to be arrested and detained indefinitely without charge or trial. Obvious questions of constitutionality aside, this should prompt at least the cautious to ask questions like the following:
1) What is the legal definition of "terrorist"?
2) Who can make you disappear by calling you one?
To answer the first question, we searched the online version of the United States Code - "the codification of the general and permanent laws of the United States" - for a definition of "terrorist". And to our amazement, we didn't find one. Over 400 references to "terrorist" in the USC, yes. But a specific definition, no. What we did find is this:
Title 8 Section 1182(a)(3)(B) defines "terrorist activity" but not "terrorist":
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
Title 18 Section 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" [READ CLOSELY] but not "terrorist":
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331
Title 22 Section 2656f(d) defines "international terrorism", "terrorism", "terrorist group" and "terrorist sanctuary" but not "terrorist":
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2656f
I'm no attorney and I don't play one on television. But after reading the above, it seems to me that the short answer to the question "What is the legal definition of terrorist?" is "That depends."
Now on to the second question: Who can make you disappear by calling you one?
According to the Washington Post's TOP SECRET AMERICA project, there are "45 government organizations (for example, the FBI) engaged in top-secret work [that can] be broken down into 1,271 sub-units (for example, the Terrorist Screening Center of the FBI)." I'm pretty sure they can. But they also mention "4,058 government organizations involved in domestic counterterrorism and homeland security" including 2,880 federal organizations that work at the state level, such as the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs), plus 818 state and 360 local organizations. I'm pretty sure they can, too. And then of course there's the "1,931 companies engaged in top-secret work for the government." I'd wager some or all of them can, as well.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/methodology/
And that's not all. We also have to consider the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative (NSI):
Using NaSI SARs (Suspicious Activity Reports), just about anyone can drop the dime the makes you disappear: a hateful former spouse, a jealous or jilted lover, that co-worker you're always competing with, or maybe just a nosey neighbor. All they have to do is fill out one of these forms and click "Submit":
http://amerikanreich.com/sar-list/
Our thanks to the OccupyWallSt.org Forum and Reddit r/Politics posters who contributed to the research for this release:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/please-help-us-determine-the-actual-precise-specif/
http://www.reddit.com/user/ironboltbruce/
NO MORE LEFT. NO MORE RIGHT. TIME TO UNITE. STAND AND FIGHT!
IronBoltBruce via VVV PR ( http://veritasvirtualvengeance.com | @vvvpr )
Img: http://veritasvirtualvengeance.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/suspected_terrorist.jpg
Vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWvSFBVojjU
Spt: https://www.wepay.com/donate/ironboltbruce
Tag: #terrorist, #terrorists, #terrorism, #aumf, #ndaa, #bigbrother, #fascism, #fascist, #fascists, #ows, #vvvpr
Key: suspicious activity, suspicious activity reports, suspected terrorist, terrorist, terrorists, terrorism, international terrorism, domestic terrorism, aumf, ndaa, ndaa 2012, national defense authorization act, big brother, fascism, fascist, fascists, ows, occupy wall street, vvv pr
FEMA Concentration Camps
You know this site is being momitored
FEMA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxE-A8gNGHw&feature=related
Updated
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/new_nationwide_fema_camps_should_raise_eyebrows.html
This is blatant misinformation that perpetuates the myth that the 2012 NDAA's detention provisions hinge on the word "terrorist". They do not. This is what it says:
Your talk about "What is the legal definition of terrorist?" is misleading, becuase you're implying that the NDAA for 2012 has provisions that can be applied based on the word "terrorist". That's just not true.
Bullshit. Nowhere did we say "the 2012 NDAA's detention provisions hinge on the word terrorist." And thanks for posting your link again. I'll do the same:
http://original.antiwar.com/mirra/2012/02/15/the-ndaa-and-the-militarization-of-america/
"My link"?!? That's the text of the NDAA of 2012 bill.
The original post claims that because of the NDAA of 2012, "the mere suspicion of being a "terrorist" is sufficient grounds for an American citizen - on American soil - to be arrested and detained indefinitely without charge or trial." Then the original post goes on about the legal definition of the word "terrorist".
But that's not what the NDAA of 2012 says.
That's not what the NDAA says verbatim, but nowhere do we claim or even imply it was. It IS what the NDAA says de facto, however, and that we have well supported.
Take your regime plant doublespeak propaganda down the street, pal.
I have to side with Tech on this. The NDAA for 2012 actually makes the Patriot Act null and void. This is why all the agencies you named, bitched and whined endlessly before it was passed that it would limit their ability (to abuse the patriot act). Investigations deemed to be terrorist related are to be turned over to the military immediately. This also castrates the entire point of the "spy on your neighbor" initiative. It's a way for politicians to walk back the patriot act without looking like they are backing down or weak on national security. The military isn't interested in chasing down pot heads under the guise of terrorism. There is also a push from this administration to do away with most of those agencies.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/07/21/cutting-waste-contracting
I have read sections 1021 and 1022 of NDAA 2012 many times, and I believe I understand them about as well as their twisted wording and sneaky semantics can be understood. Nowhere in this posting did I quote either section, so it is not possible that they were misquoted. And nothing in this posting is inconsistent with their true meaning and potential application.
you left out the part that all investigations of terrorism are to be turned over to the military. from the very begging of the process, all those other agencies are cut out of the loop.
1) "you left out the part that all investigations of terrorism are to be turned over to the military"
Please provide the code citation you refer to, along with a link to it.
2) "from the very begging of the process, all those other agencies are cut out of the loop."
Please provide linked evidence as to which if any of the agencies or entities mentioned here have been or will be affected by what you refer to in 1 above:
http://topsecretamerica.com
What the NDAA (for 2012) says, de facto, is:
Your question "What is the legal definition of terrorist?" implies that the NDAA of 2012 has provisions that can be applied based on the legal definition of the word "terrorist". That's just not true.
The NDAA for 2012 has many problems. One problem is that it codifies questionable existing policies for military detainees. Another problem is that it makes it virtually impossible for Guantanamo Bay to be closed. But spreading misinformation doesn't help the situation at all because you're distracting from the real problems of the 2012 NDAA by propagating misinformation.
I have read sections 1021 and 1022 of NDAA 2012 many times, and I believe I understand them about as well as their twisted wording and sneaky semantics can be understood. Nowhere in this posting did I quote either section, so it is not possible that they were misquoted. And nothing in this posting is inconsistent with their true meaning and potential application.
Why confuse everyone with facts?
One popular myth surrounding this law (which has been marketed well by the White House "OREO OBAMA" and the mainstream media) is that it does not pertain to U.S. persons (citizens and resident aliens). While the law does not explicitly target U.S. persons, it neither excludes nor protects them. Section 1022 of the law covers U.S. persons. The section allows for open-ended executive judgment with regard to the handling of U.S. persons. In other words, the detention of U.S persons is optional, rather than a requirement as it is for non-U.S. persons. Jonathan Turley, legal scholar and professor at George Washington University, explains that “the provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality.”
Obama's Promise: "While in 'office' his admin will not send you to Guantanamo", but after he's gone your ass belongs to Guantanamo. Of course Obama also promised to close Guantanamo, ... so much for Obama's promises in the past and the future.
Accompanying the President’s signature was a signing statement which was intended to clarify some of his perspectives on the NDAA’s most controversial language. The statement read in part, “my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American Citizens.” However, what is important to keep in mind here is that the statement refers only to what this administration pledges, not to the intentions or requirements of future administrations.
The true problem with the NDAA for 2012 is that it makes it virtually impossible for Obama to keep his 2008 campaign promise to shut down Guantanamo Bay. Misleading posts like the orignal post here only serve to distract from the real issues surrounding the NDAA.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/03/constitutional-attorney-guantanamo-nearly-impossible-to-close-thanks-to-ndaa/
Like he said, "Only while he's in office', after that President Santorum ( anal sex feces king ) will give everybody 'free' room & board at their local Guantanamo Slavery Center, aka 'DHS Fusion Center'.
Make fun of Santorum all you want, it's the easy thing to do. What's truly sad is that Obama failed to follow through on his promise to close Guantanamo as his first act as president in his first term, and the protections that he offers against detention expire when his presidency ends. So what the hell good is that? FAIL.
Obama-Oreo is an asshole, yet YOU and the Entire flock of OWS minions continue to work for his re-election in 2012.
Why in the fucking hell doesn't OWS find a new candidate for the DNC?
We aren't here to defend politicians.
I couldn't tell you, because I'm a Republican. YOU missed your target on that one!
[Removed]
Presidential "signing statements" are political propaganda. The have neither the force of law nor penalty for breach.