Does Section 1029 Of The NDAA Guarantee Americans Their Constitutional Rights To Trial?


Well, it's been one year to the day when Barack Hussein Obama signed into law the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and it's assumed he will sign the new 2013 version of the NDAA sometime today, keeping the signing under the radar as he did last year. The questions surrounding this year's NDAA has been over whether or not proposed amendments to it would, in fact, provide protections for Americans under the Constitution, guaranteeing them their Sixth Amendment rights.

While I told you about the Feinstein Amendment here and here, but the reality is that the Feinstein amendment was dropped from the 2012 NDAA.

But wasn't there another provision in the NDAA that guarantees an American's right to trial is upheld? Well, there is Section 1029, which is referred to as the Gohmert Amendment. The amendment was written by Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX). The amendment has claimed to protect the rights of U.S. citizens if they are arrested and suspected of terrorism. Here is the text of Section 1029 of the 2013 NDAA:

"Nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or to deny any Constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution for any person who is lawfully in the United States when detained pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force and who is otherwise entitled to the availability of such writ or such rights."

It sounds like it is guaranteeing to protect American citizens rights, doesn't it? I mean it's pretty straight forward. But is it?

According to Dan Johnson, with PANDA (People Against the NDAA) the problem is in the language, particularly the guarantee to a trial in an Article III court. He writes:

"The Gohmert Amendment only says that if you get a trial in an Article III court that you won't be denied your constitutional rights in that court, but there's no guarantee that you get any trial, let alone one in an Article III court. This language is deceptive in that it implies Congress can pick and choose who gets Constitutional Rights. It also does not recognize or protect the Constitutional Rights of U.S. citizens travelling abroad."

In other words, Section 1029 does nothing to protect your right to a trial in an Article III court. In fact, lawmakers have declared that America is a "battlefield." This means that anyone detained under the 2001 (You read that right, that's George W. Bush) Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which was strengthened further by the 2012 NDAA, would be subject to a military trial, not a trial in an Article III court.

Johnson goes on affirm this stating that "Anyone detained under the 2001 AUMF as modified by the 2012 NDAA is subject to the laws of war."

My friends you need to understand that this applies based simply on the "suspicion" of being a terrorist or being involved with terrorists by either the President or anyone under his command! This means they would not get the Article III court, but rather would be subject to an Article I court, or we commonly refer to them as a Military Tribunal or a Courts-Martial.

Dan Johnson goes further to explain that "The 2009 Military Commissions Act gave military commissions/tribunals (also know as courts-martial) the statutory authority to choose whether or not they had jurisdiction. In laymen's terms, that means a Military commission (an Article I Court) can decide themselves whether or not they will take "jurisdiction" over cases involving AUMF/NDAA "covered persons."

So while the language of the Gohmert amendment sounds good, it does absolutely nothing to guarantee you a trial in an Article III court. You can still be indefinitely detained based on the White House saying you are a terrorist. Additionally, if you do get a trial, it may be in a military tribunal and not a civilian court of law. However, should you actually get into an Article III court, then your rights would be honored...."unless otherwise entitled."

All this comes down to those final two words, "otherwise entitled." The statement is basically saying that you are not "otherwise enetitled" even though the Constitution says you are. Under both Bush and Obama, if they deemed you a terrorist, you had no right to a trial, because in their words, you are an "enemy combatant." If you don't believe that our representatives think the same thing, listen to Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) as he was interviewed and asked about his statement "Shut up! You don't get a lawyer!" Hear him state these exact words.

Don't forget while you are celebrating tonight that Obama just may be doing some celebrating of his own by signing this unconstitutional, tyrannical bill into law, further endangering you and me and our children.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.






Comments

comments

  • KG

    Soros used to work for the Nazi's & is Obamas biggest backer - get that & you have figured out the Wizard of Oz is running this country - he also bought up voting companies, & media affiliates for starters!!! He's trying to get internet control along with guns!!! He hates America & wants to turn it into HIS agenda!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Yeshua friend

    With the way today's Courts operate, there's not much chance of anyone getting a fair trial as outlined by the U.S. Constitution. You are no longer entitled to a 12 member jury of your pears, unless the charge is Capital Murder; so the person who's life is to be taken away from them by way of imprisonment, is of lesser value than that of the murderer? How is that equal justice? When the person is found to have been innocent, can the government give them back the 5,10, or 20 years they stole from them, by adding to their life by the same number of years? No! What about the many innocent people which are coursed into taking a plea bargain, of no contest, or Alford plea under great duress for 5-10 years, verses 20-life if they go to trial? Do you think they received any justice? I tell you, if you were in their same position, our government could get you to plead guilty to spitting on the moon for a 5 year prison sentence, rather than gamble on 20 years in their kangaroo Court system. Shalom!

  • Greg137

    Obama is the Enemy of America.. He has armed America's enemies without the approval of Congress, namely the muslim brotherhood... He is directly responsible for allowing the embassy in benghazi to fall prey to attack! He committed systematic Voter FRAUD to get re-elected... he denied the military abesentee ballots to be sent the day after the election so they wouldn't be counted... He rigged voter machines to default to Obama.. He was supported by illegal aliens and Samalian nationalists... He only won the presidency by about 3% of the vote which is slim...To any Conservatives that either stayed home or voted for that gary johnson guy I say Congrats! You just re-elected Obama for a second term! I hope you are proud of yourselves.that the man you have always wanted managed to get re-elected... What is that? You hate Obama? So why didn't you vote?! Even if he wasn't pure, ROMNEY would have been a hell of a lot better than Obama Bin Laden.... That is for damn sure!

  • http://www.facebook.com/john.giorgi.7 John Giorgi

    How to get a 4 year college education in 1 hour? Listen to this man - the whole 1 hour and 3 minutes and 17 seconds to be exact: http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=8fQoGMtE0EY&feature=endscreen

  • Jeronimo Dan

    If there is one thing that is certain about this Country and that is we can not trust this Government on anything that is told us, by this Government!

  • VNEVET56

    Okay, I am struggling with this one. It appears that the Gohmert Amendment (section 1029) specifically states that the writ of habeas corpus, or Constitutional Rights in any Court established by Article III cannot be denied based on the AUMF or NDAA 2012. The writ of habeas corpus demands that the detainee be produced before a Judge, and Article III Courts have to operate with consideration for Constitutional rights...so where is the issue?

    I am not sure I agree with Dan Johnson's interpretation. I believe he errs when he states there is no guarantee that you get into an Article III court; the final sentence of 1029 states that if you are legally in the U.S and are entitled to Constitutional protections then the AUMF can not deny you habeas corpus or your rights. And of course, any U.S. Citizen traveling abroad is subject to the laws of the countries they are traveling in.

    I am generally one of the first to pile on this government in any dog-pile. I think many of our "representatives" do not know the definition of that word and I trust the federal government as far as I can throw them. But in this case I am not sure there is an issue? input definitely welcome.

  • SGT YORK

    Just the start of the new Communist Liberal America that is coming fast to our shores from with in. To Late? Boys I hope not but we gotta stand fast look sharp and be vigilant.

  • J J

    Obama is whittling away at and sending our freedoms, liberties and rights flying off of that cliff (following our financial situation) one at a time in secret, behind closed doors so we don't know what has happened to us until it is too late. His transparency promise was the first to go. Washington is too big, arrogant and busy. I am very afraid for America!!

    • Jeronimo Dan

      What is sad about the 51% that voted for this Communist Dictator, they are illiterate and think things are going to get better. It won't be long before their entitlement's will be taken away, or extremely cut back, but it will be to late for all of us.

      It's kind of laughable that Obama bought a powerful nation, with a free cheap cell phone...

  • popham

    139 executive orders in four years....and counting.
    With more executive power than any president in American history,
    Barack Hussein Obama now has complete control over every aspect of
    our lives, freedoms and liberties.
    Good luck, America.

  • matism

    The "law" was written by a bunch of lawyers to say what THEY want it to say. What do YOU think they intended? If it had been meant to guarantee the right to a trial, they could have made it clearly say so. Instead, they came up with this.

    May every one of them rot in hell for what they have done to this country.

  • Bobby G

    This all is coming together with what Nepaletano declared that all these groups, such as the tea party, former military members and Constitutionalists are terrorist groups. She also went so far as to say, that if you disagree with the Government, you are a terrorist. Now we will begin to see what the Garbage in the White House is up to, when he said "I will have much more flexibility in my second term" IT IS TIME TO SERIOUSLY BEGIN," A DRIVE TO IMPEACH, NOW".

  • lorri

    This goes perfectly with what is in the army manual for reeducation and internment camps. That's what they state in there. Look up us.army.mil document number fm_3_39_40 if link doesn't work, google search it, you can get the pdf of the whole thing. It also gives layouts etc..

  • volts1776

    This law is null and void from the get go, not unlike numerous others! Anyone KNOWS the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land, and any law written contrary to it, is in fact, null and void. My reference in the LAW BOOKS, specifically the "Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177, Second Late Edition, Section 256." LOOK IT UP, READ IT!!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeff-Horton/100000278827311 Jeff Horton

      But you have to get your day in court to point this out. then you will have to see if the supreme court will hear it. mean while your rotting in prison.

    • usmadgirl

      volts1776,

      I appreciate what you're saying & it SHOULD be as you said, BUT I'm rolling my eyes at YOU just like I roll my eyes at my partner. He says "They can't DO that! That's unconstitutional"! And I'm going to tell you that we have an UNConstitutional dictator "ruling" our nation. We knew he didn't recognize the Constitution as the law of the land, BEFORE he was elected, when he said it was a "flawed document". To anyone with half a brain, that should've been a clue to NOT vote for him (along with his Muslim name, all the radicals we KNEW he associated with, his saying "under MY plan, energy bills will necessarily skyrocket" & "we are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America")! He has, since the day he took office, SHOWN us that he has absolutely no respect for or intention of following our Constitituon for any reason! You & my partner are living in the "pre-O'Dumbo" America that ended 4 years ago. We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto! We're in the land of O'Dumbo! We're now living in the USSA!

  • CrazySpirit

    people are blind to whats coming from Obama,Some won't realize it till its done.People in this Country needs to WAKE UP quick.Obama's agenda is to rule this country his way and thats not going to happen,if people UNITE and STAND UP for this Country now while we still can.I myself never thought I'd see the day when kids couldn't pray in school and Abortion being legal,its WRONG!! So WAKE UP AMERICA,You know the saying United We Stand Devided We FALL !! Lets not let that Happen!!!!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeff-Horton/100000278827311 Jeff Horton

      The BIG O has pretty well divided this country. Or not far from dividing OUR country.

  • flagman

    Do not, will not obey any unlawful orders from anyone