With the recent passage by Congress of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, soon to be signed into law by Barack Obama, and existence of the 2012 NDAA law, many states have sought nullification of NDAA. Nevada is now set to put forth it’s own anti-NDAA bill, BDR 728. On December 19, the Nevada chapters of the People Against the National Defense Authorization Act (PANDA) announced the introduction of the bill. The bill is sponsored by Nevada State Senator Don Gustavson and will be presented to lawmakers in February when the legislature reconvenes.
Christopher Corbett, Nevada state coordinator for PANDA, said in a statement that announced the introduction of the bill, which is titled “The Nevada Liberty Preservation Act”:
I appreciate the community support backing up our efforts and the courage of those members of our governing bodies who are willing to actively protect the constitutional rights of their constituents. We need to restore the Constitutionally protected right to due process for every American.
The 2012 version of NDAA was signed into law quietly on New Year’s Eve last year and it is expected that the recently passed NDAA bill will be signed in a similar manner. Major media outlets have yet to deal with this issue so it’s up to the rest of us to share the information of what the federal government is doing through legislation. They are openly violating the Constitution of the United States and indicating that America has become a battlefield and that each one of us is a potential terrorist, not because they can prove such in a court of law, but because they simply say so. The NDAA then provides for those individuals, including American citizens to be denied due process, which is a Constitutionally protected right under the Sixth Amendment.
The 2012 NDAA, which has not been repealed, authorizes individuals to be indefinitely detained without charge or trial simply on the accusation that they may be tied to terrorists or be one themselves. PANDA’s Nevada chapter claims the 2012 NDAA’s Sections 1021 & 1022 “violates at least 23 Articles of and Amendments to both the US and Nevada Constitutions.”
Some Congressmen attempted to thwart this year’s NDAA bill. Representatives Adam Smith (D-Washington) and Justin Amash (R-Michigan) put for an amendment to remove the indefinite de, which was shamefully rejected by a vote of 238-182.
Amash passionately stated during the House debate on the amendment, “The frightening thing here is that the government is claiming the power under the Afghanistan authorization for use of military force as a justification for entering American homes to grab people, indefinitely detain them and not give them a charge or trial.”
Cully Stimson, writing for the Heritage Foundation, called the Smith-Amash Amendment “Dangerous policy” saying, “The Smith–Amash amendment would force the government to send any al-Qaeda member captured in the United States directly to federal court. If this amendment becomes law, it would limit a President’s flexibility and take off the table lawful military detention and lawful interrogation for intelligence purposes. For these and other reasons, the proposal is unwise.”
So while there continue to be people like Stimson who don’t want to follow the rule of law, our Constitution, then we are all at risk, for Section 1021 goes far beyond “being a member of al-Qaeda.” It states that Congress affirms the authority of the President to use all appropriate military force according to the “laws of war.” The problem here is that there has not been a Constitutionally declared war in America. Therefore, the entire argument is bogus. Dealing with those on the battlefield is one thing. Dealing with those who commit crimes in America is something else, no matter who they are affiliated with and the last time I checked, the Sixth Amendment applies to all those on U.S. soil.
In fact, this issue of indefinite detention was struck down earlier in the year by a U.S district court judge, but then resurrected back to life within 24 hours by New York federal judge Raymond Lohier, and this was after the Obama administration petitioned for it, even after Obama first claimed he would never sign the bill into law because of the provision of “indefinite detention.”
The Nevada chapters of PANDA have not only supported this at the state level but have also pushed for similiar nullification at the local level for the Washoe County Commission and the Reno City Council.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.
Become an insider!
Sign up for the free Freedom Outpost email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.