Obama and Clinton Arrested under the National Defense Authorization Act.
Before repealing the National Defense Authorization Act, which literally was the final death sentence to any residual democracy and justice in the United States of America, I would highly recommend that the citizens of the United States wait with their uprising to repeal the legislation, until it has been applied on Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton, a few internationally known politicians and heads of state, as well as few of their political advisers and financial supporters. We will get back to them.
It would also be advisable not to make any rush decisions about Guantanamo. After all, if US-American law would be applied on Obama, Clinton and some others, as we will see below, it may actually be nice to detain them somewhere far, far way from the United States of America. It would actually be practical to detain them at a location where one can be certain that they, in the case that they would flee the premises, would be instantly returned by local authorities.
Can you imagine the Cuban authorities granting political asylum to Obama and Clinton ? I can´t.
Lets have a look at what Constitutional Lawyer KrisAnne Hall has to say about the NDAA, and in particular, what she has to say about the much discussed Section 1021 and Section 1022. KrisAnne Hall is pointing out some of the ambiguities of the NDAA, shedding some real light on the real meaning of the law. Who knows, maybe the one or the other peace-loving patriotic prosecutor would make good use of it and spare the world from unadulterated evil if only he knew how to use the NDAA ? I will be quoting freely from a video by AnneKris Hall. (1)
Before we can determine if the NDAA can be used against two of the most notorious sponsors of state sponsored terrorism, we will have to determine if the NDAA covers them.
Sec. 1021 starts out as follows:
“Affirmation of Authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain Covered Persons Pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force”
As Constitutional Lawyer KrisAnne Hall points out, the important, or operative phrase in the paragraph is “Covered Person“.
Section a of 1021 then starts by reaffirming the use of “all necessary and appropriate Force pursuant to the Authorization of the Use of Military Force” which includes “the Authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain Covered Persons”.
Section b of 1021 defines what a covered person is. According to AnneKris Hall this is one of the sections where the ambiguities of the bill are apparent, and where the arguments for the bill are falling apart. Principally I agree with KrisAnne Hall, but as suggested above, I belief it is a good idea to wait until the NDAA has been applied to certain “terrorists and terrorist sponsors” before we repeal it.
Section b states, that “ A Covered Person under this section is Any Person as follows:
1) A Person who planned, authorized, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11 2001, or harbored those responsible for the attacks.
Well, that is rather clear and unambiguous language, and this section could probably be used against several members of the Bush Administration, the former Interior Minister of Saudi Arabia and others, but we want to stop the ongoing violence – like that in Syria – so we have to focus on more acute matters. Let us have a look at the next section, No. 2.
2) “A Person who was Part of or substantially supported Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or Associated Forces that are engaged in Hostilities against the United States or it´s Coalition Partners, including Any Person who has committed a belligerent Act, or has directly supported such Hostilities in Aid of such Enemy Forces“
The first person who is coming up in my mind is no other than the Prime Minister of Turkey, R. Tayyip Erdogan, who has supported both Taliban and Al Qaeda for years. In fact, nsnbc has a video with R. Tayyip Erdogan posing with his Al Qaeda buddies. (2) It should be possible for a patriotic and peace loving prosecutor to issue an arrest warrant and have him arrested, tried and sentenced and shipped to Guantanamo.
The next two who come to my mind are the former Prime Minister of Denmark, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, who was so kind to let himself be photographed with his Taliban Buddies in Afghanistan, holding an AK 47, and his evil xenophobic twin sister and Chairman of the Nationalist, Racist, Danish Peoples Party (Dansk Folkeparti) Pia Kjærsgaard. Both Lars Løkke Rasmussen and Pia Kjærsgaard protested regularly in front of the Russian Embassy in Copenhagen Denmark, and raised substantial amounts of money for the “Freedom Fighters” in Afghanistan. A patriotic and peace loving prosecutor could simply follow the leads provided in a previous article by the author.(2) An investigation would most certainly lead to an arrest, trial and sentencing under the provisions of the NDAA.
With a little bit of good will and effort we would already be able to fill at least three of the cells at Guantanamo with “special guests”. Honestly, don´t close Guantanamo down yet. We might be able to fill it above capacity.
To make sure that Obama and Hillary can join the Guantanamo V.I.P. Club however, we need to find some real bad ambiguities within the NDAA. One could say that real bad brats require real bad ambiguities, but don´t despair quite yet. The NDAA makes even the impossible possible. All we have to do is to take a closer look at the last sentence.
Remember the last section contained the words “including any Person”, “any Person who has committed a belligerent Act, or has directly supported such Hostilities in Aid of such Enemy Forces” As AnneKris Hall points out, these words leave a great big hole for interpretation, so – let us interpret a little. Wonderful, wonderful Copenhagen.
The operant words we must pay attention to are the words “Any Person – Belligerent Act – and – Hostilities” . As constitutional lawyer AnneKris Hall points out, we have opened up the interpretation of a “covered person” to be “any person” – who commits a “belligerent act” or a “hostility“. With that kind of ambiguity we should be able to send almost everyone to Guantanamo, including myself – provided that this article is perceived as “hostile” to the United States.
Now let us recall last years kinetic military action against Libya. If I remember correctly, it was President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton who sent CIA personnel to Derna and Bengazi to make contact with what was publicly described as “The Transitional National Council“. Other euphemisms like peaceful protesters and a cohort of pretty words were used in Western Main Stream Media.
Since the United States Military Academy at West Point had published a terrorism study that clearly documented who and what those people in Derna were, it must have been more than obvious that this T.N.C. was mainly run by members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. If it was not enough to know whom our two Guantanamo candidates were dealing with, it should have become clear for them latest at the time when the rest of the world – meaning everybody in countries where citizens were not subject to NATO Propaganda, realized that the USA and NATO in fact began cooperating with, raising funds for, arming and militarily supporting no other than ?
Correct, Al Qaeda. The Al Qaeda Associated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which is commanded by a certain Mr. Abdelhakim Belhadj,a.k.a. Hasadi, a.k.a. Hasidi, who is also known for having been the mastermind behind the Madrid Train Bombings in 2004. That is, if we presume the truthfulness of the words of the former Prime Minister of Spain, Aznar.
In other words, we actually would not have to look for further ambiguities before we could have Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton arrested under the provisions of the NDAA, shipped to Guantanamo to forget about them – hopefully forever. But now, where we have good sailing, lets see if it should not be possible to get rid of some more warmongers.
In fact, as AnneKris Hall points it out, the NDAA allows us to
detain any person -who has engaged in a belligerent act -or hostility -without trial, -
until the end of “such” hostilities.
What more do we need ? I suggest that some brave and patriotic FBI agent, any patriotic Sheriff, any prosecutor, US – Marshall arrests Hillary and Obama under the provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act.
That way it would really serve the National Defense. We could keep Guantanamo open for Bush, Bush, Cheney, Obama, Clinton and Clinton, Rasmussen, Kjærsgaard, Erdogan. In other words, please don´t close Guantanamo yet, and please don´t repeal the NDAA until we read in the Washington Post:
“Obama and Clinton Arrested under the National Defense Authorization Act.”
I wish you a good and peaceful Sunday.
1) KrisAnne Hall Reviews the National Defense Authorization Act. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzWt3QoxnGk
2)Libya Denmark and Dirty Double Dealings. http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/09/28/libya-denmark-and-dirty-double-dealings/