The repression has only just begun . We are all “Enemies of the State” if the State says so .
” As reported by Nick Hankoff at the California Tenth Amendment Center today, AB351, the California Liberty Preservation Act has been signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown:
Assembly Bill 351, commonly called the California Liberty Preservation Act, has been signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown making it statewide policy to refuse compliance with federal attempts to enforce “indefinite detention” made famous by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA). What began as a marginal issue with little legislative support has unified Californians of all persuasions and brought attention to the proper role the people and their states play in a constitutional republic.
AB351 now makes it state policy to reject “indefinite detention” powers from the federal government. It reads, in part:
It is the policy of this state to refuse to provide material support for or to participate in any way with the implementation within this state of any federal law that purports to authorize indefinite detention of a person within California. [emphasis added]
This language of AB351 goes far beyond what has been considered in most other states, which focus solely on indefinite detention powers under the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and nothing else. Donnelly’s legislation broadened the scope by recognizing that indefinite detention should not be complied with no matter what federal law is used to justify it. Donnelly confirmed this broad scope, “AB351 will prevent California from implementing indefinite detention for any reason.”
This can make a HUGE dent in any federal effort to detain without due process in California. As Judge Andrew Napolitano has said recently, such widespread noncompliance can make a federal law “nearly impossible to enforce” (video here). Quite simply, the federal government is going to have an extremely difficult time – at best – carrying out indefinite detention in California without the assistance of California.”
Originally posted on The Rio Norte Line:
In light of news reports that Guantanamo Bay may be closed with its occupants slated to be brought inside the borders of the USA, it is important to understand the POTENTIAL Definition of TERRORIST. We now have official acceptance of a “Presidential Kill List” and indefinite DETENTION of terrorists “accepted” by OUR federal Government. The ALLOWANCE of the suspension of habeus corpus WITHIN the borders of the USA during a time when WAR HAS NOT BEEN DECLARED, lays the groundwork for U.S. citizens to be “detained” and “held” by the mere addition of a name to some “security list” with NO RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION OF YOUR ACCUSER, OR EVEN BEING INFORMED OF THE CHARGES AND EVIDENCE AGAINST YOU !
What is a potential terrorist in the eyes of the current Administration? The Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division of the current administration’s Department of Homeland Security published their PERCEPTIONS…
View original 981 more words
” Then, President Barack Obama went far beyond his predecessor’s administration to become the most destructive uprooter of our Constitution in our nation’s history.
Growing up as a student at Boston Latin School, one of whose alumni was Samuel Adams, a firebrand of our American Revolution, I read American history with excitement. I learned how we always overcame grimly looming threats to our self-governing republic to become a beacon to the world.
But never did I even imagine that an American president, without insuring due process in a court of law, would – as Obama does – use a kill list to target suspected terrorists for assassination. So far this list has also included three American citizens.
Obama has taken advantage of ever-advancing digital technology, using bottomless databases that keep track of those Americans he considers persons of subversive interest. During the presidential debates, did you hear anything about our vanishing privacy? “
‘ With 500-some pages of text, the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) covers a lot more than just section 1021(b), but the majority of the debates over the bill involve the very reason the four letters N-D-A-A have become shorthand for fears of government power finally crossing a Rubicon. Whether or not that’s really true, the caginess of the government in respect to who it can indefinitely detain[pdf] is disturbing and demands a clarification that is not being offered.
Section 1021(b) reads that someone who can be indefinitely detained is:
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, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”
If a republican president signed this the outrage would be phenomenal . Now the silence is deafening .