Defense Authorization Act – Is it Treason?

MILITARY NOW EMPOWERED TO ARREST U.S. CITIZENS ON U.S. SOIL

by JB Williams, ©2011

(Dec. 6, 2011) — At first glance, I had some doubts about all the hoopla over the pending Defense Authorization Act and claims that it was essentially a declaration of war on American citizens, under the guise of national security and annual defense appropriations.

Then I read the bill and connected the dots that every American must connect immediately.

The treasonous text in that bill reads as follows; (pay close attention to the areas in bold)

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force [1] pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b) pending disposition under the law of war. [2]

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, [3] including any person who has committed a belligerent act [4] or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces. [5]

Before directly addressing this text and in an effort to fully grasp how this text is an act of treason against the American people, there are a few fundamental facts one must understand.

• Our Armed Services exist for one reason alone, at the service of the people, to protect and defend the Unites States, The U.S. Constitution and the American people against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. This is the primary purpose and function of our federal government.
• The Laws of War as written by William Winthrop, also known as Military Law or the Uniform Code of Military Justice, operate entirely separate and independent from the Civil Justice System, including the suspension of fundamental Constitutional Rights for both members of the Military and those designated enemy combatants.
• Following Bill Clinton’s lead in 1996 and immediately upon seizing office, the Obama Administration issued a Homeland Security Report directly identifying members of the US Military, Veterans and American citizens with dissenting views towards the current direction of our country as “potential domestic terrorists” and “right-wing extremists.”
• The Obama Administration has been cross-training state and local law enforcement agencies on dealing with “urban warfare” aimed at so-called “right-wing extremists” which is now defined as anyone opposed to Global Governance and national socialism.
• American courts no longer enforce the law or the Constitution. Instead, they make up the law as they go via unbridled interpretation powers exceeding their constitutional authority, all in the name of “social justice,” not to be confused with actual justice.

As a result, the language in Sections 1031 and 1032 of the Defense Authorization Act amount to treason against the American people, as an open-ended power of the Executive Branch to indefinitely detain, incarcerate and interrogate American citizens on the basis of suspicion or accusations without even bringing any criminal charges, much less providing due process of the law.

What if the person sitting in the Oval Office is a foreign born domestic enemy of the United States? — What if the Administration is willing to use the full power of the federal government and the U.S. Military to force its political will upon the people, deeming every dissenter as a “potential domestic terrorist?” — What if the American courts make up laws as they go without any regard for written laws or the U.S. Constitution?

Guess what? That’s exactly what we have today!

The current Defense Authorization Act gives the President of the United States the unbridled power to use the U.S. Military against American citizens, their Constitutional Rights suspended under the Laws of War.

That’s what this text says and that’s how today’s courts will interpret that language.

Breaking Down the Text

[1] “authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force” – Appropriate force is not the same thing as necessary force. Military force against American citizens is entirely inappropriate. But if the federal government keeps destroying the constitutional republic, it may well become necessary. NO single politician can be trusted with this much power.

[2] “Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.” – Use of Military force against American citizens is entirely inappropriate and even unconstitutional, whether deemed necessary or not. Placing American citizens under the Laws of War is placing them under Martial Law, including the suspension of all Constitutional Rights. It is an act of war against the American people and that is an act of treason.

[3] “associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,” – What constitutes “associated forces” – “engaged in hostilities against the United States?” Are Wall Street protesters engaged in hostilities against the United States? Are college students protesting higher tuitions engaged in hostilities against the United States when they smash store windows or set cars on fire? Is someone engaged in hostilities against France or England a potential domestic terrorist? Are Tea Party rallies an act of aggression against the federal government of the United States? Is the mere accusation enough?

[4] “any person who has committed a belligerent act” – All of the acts described in item [3] above can be deemed “belligerent acts.” Is there any such thing as wrongful prosecution under the Laws of War? You had better read the Laws of War.

[5] “has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces” – Is Ron Paul guilty of hostile acts in support of enemy forces for blaming the United States for all the attacks on the United States? Paul is one of only six House Republicans to vote against the bill. Is Code Pink guilty of aiding and abetting enemy forces? Are they subject to U.S. Military attacks on US soil for their hostile actions in support of our nation’s enemies? Are members of congress currently bankrupting the nation acting hostile and belligerent towards the United States?

The U.S. House passed this bill on May 26, 2011 by a vote of 322-96, including Tea Party darlings Michelle Bachmann, Marco Rubio and Allen West.

The Senate bill passed on December 1, 2011 by a vote of 93-7. Merry Christmas! Only three Senate Republicans voted against the bill, Coburn (OK), Lee (UT) and Paul (KY). Did all other Republicans know what they were voting for?

If you are still trying to figure out just how far your federal government is willing to go to complete implementation of UN Agenda 21 and the U.S. Global Governance Plan, look no further than the passage of the Defense Authorization Act for 2012, paying very close attention to the text discussed in this column.

Could this new law place American soldiers in direct violation of their oaths to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution and the American people against all enemies?

The legislation itself does not… but an order from the President of the United States to go to weapons against American citizens certainly would. How would American soldiers react to such an outrageous order? Only time will tell…

Our federal government is 100% committed to implementing a plan for Global Government which will bring about the end of American sovereignty, security and superiority in the world. Citizens willing to stand opposed may indeed fall within the provisional power just granted to the President in this legislation and could well find themselves persecuted under the Laws of War rather than the Civil Justice System.

More than ever in U.S. history, it is vital that the American people to know their enemies and their options. Unless they can find a way to keep Obama from signing this bill into law, their options will be limited to the broad interpretations of today’s broken legal system.

God help us!

 Jb.uspu@gmail.com