, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

unalienable: adjective

…incapable of being alienated, surrendered or transferred, as in, unalienable rights. -Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” -Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.

martial law: noun

1. the law temporarily imposed upon an area by state or national military forces when civil authority has broken down, or during wartime military operations.
2. the law imposed upon a defeated country or occupied territory by the military forces of the occupying power.
*            *             *
*            *             *

A Response To Senator Carl Levin: Part II, by Jonathan Turley, jonathanturley.org, January 27, 2012


“While Sen. Carl Levin insisted the bill followed existing law ‘whatever the law is,’ the Senate specifically rejected an amendment that would exempt citizens and the Administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal court.”

“…nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” -NDAA

“…the language cited by Levin [above]has been ridiculed by civil libertarians as meaningless rhetoric designed to give members political cover after various members denounced the legislation as allowing indefinite detention of citizens.”

“The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality.”

MTV Martial Law Commercial (2) – National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1867)

The Enemy Expatriation Act: Learn How Your Government Could Strip You of Your Citizenship If This Legislation Becomes Law, by Elaine Magliaro, jonathanturley.org, January 29, 2012


[quoting Ashley Protero, ‘Enemy Expatriation Act’ Could Compound NDAA Threat to Citizen RightsInternational Business Times, January 24, 2012] “EEA would allow the government to revoke Americans of their U.S. citizenship if they are accused or suspected of ‘engaging in, or purposefully or materially supporting, hostilities.’ The sparse amendment, which defines ‘hostilities’ as ‘any conflict subject to the laws of war,’ does not say which government body — say a military tribunal or a congressional panel — has the power to brand suspected persons as hostiles.” If EEA becomes law, our government “could potentially revoke the citizenship of anyone deemed to be supporting hostilities against the U.S., thereby subjecting him or her to the indefinite military detention provision of the NDAA.”

[quoting Ashley Portero]“…joining the military of a foreign state or engaging in ‘a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force’ the U.S. government are actions that can be interpreted as voluntarily renunciations of citizenship.”

The sponsors of the legislation argue that the Enemy Expatriation Act is constitutional. Their contention is that “citizens who engage in hostilities against the U.S. perform those acts with the intention of relinquishing their nationality.”

Nullify the NDAA: Virginia House Bill 1160: Virginia State Legislation to nullify NDAA, January 16, 2012

Excerpt: “Prevents any agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the military of Virginia from assisting an agency or the armed forces of the United States in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of a United States citizen in violation of the Constitution of Virginia.”

Model to Nullify the NDAA using State Legislatures, City Councils, and/or County Commissioners, by Tisha Casida,  [quoting model written by Blake Fillipi, The Rhode Island Liberty Coalition], casida2012.com, January 16, 2012


“Conscientious citizens, like you, must demonstrate to state and local governments that provisions of the NDAA are unconstitutional and antithetical to the United States, and that legislation nullifying the NDAA is required.

“It further provides that state/county/local officials and employees may not knowingly cooperate with an investigation or detainment of a United States citizen or lawful resident alien by, or by in-part, the Armed Forced of the United States. The Supremacy clause of the United States Constitution cannot overturn this provision because the Federal Government is not able to force state and local government officials to take affirmative acts, in this case, the cooperation with an investigation and/or detainment by the Armed Forced of the United States.”

“Next, the legislation goes one big step further and renders it unlawful for members of the Armed Forces of the United States to conduct investigations or detainments of United States citizens or lawful resident aliens. The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause may override this provision. However, the RILC takes the position that the Federal Government cannot shred the most fundamental portions of the Constitution through indefinite detainment without charge, including the rights to Habeas Corpus and Due Process, and then seek to utilize the same Constitution’s Supremacy Clause to legitimize those patently unconstitutional government acts.”

“Please be strategic about introducing NDAA nullification legislation. Build coalitions, talk to religious groups, tea party groups, the occupy movement, progressives and conservatives. Opposition to the NDAA transcends political parties and philosophies. Yet, local elected officials will be wary about the appearance of challenging the Federal Government. Your elected officials must have the community behind them in order to take the leap. ”

Petition to Supreme Court of Alaska to Block NDAA Indefinite Detention Provides Model for All States, by Monique Hairston & Liz Butler, freespeech.org, January 27, 2012


“Activist M. Riezinger-von Reitz and other unnamed Petitioners filed a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska on December 20. She started the petition in response to the “indefinite detention without trial of American citizens” provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA 2012.

“The petition cites 16 specific grounds and calls upon the Court to issue the protective preemptive Writ and to refer over twenty named criminal charges including Seditious Conspiracy against the members of Congress who voted in favor of the USA Patriot Act and NDAA 2012. Ground 16 of the Petition exposes a long and well-documented history of federal government fraud and notes that America has been kept in a constant ‘state of emergency’ for almost 80 years.”

How to Reverse the Corporate Coup d’Etat: Chris Hedges and Lawrence Lessig discuss the Occupy movement, Citizens United and options for reform.

On January 20th, occupiers across the country rallied together in protest against the insidious influence of the corporations over the judiciary. Shortly before the rally in Foley Square, New York City, Lawrence Lessig and Chris Hedges met in front of Occupy TVNY’s cameras to discuss their vision of change.

Controversial Law Lays Waste to Much of the Bill of Rights, by Harold Pease, Bakersfield.com, January 23, 2012


“…even Americans could be removed to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, against their will and deprived of their constitutional rights. The law gives no protection from a revolving definition of terrorism to anti-government, perhaps even tea partyers or Occupy Wall Street folks. The threat of potential incarceration without recourse to a lawyer, judge and trial is very serious. The military performing police duty, heretofore rendered by civil authorities, is unconscionable in a free society.

“The writ of habeas corpus, found in Article 1, Section 9, recognized that someday war might exist on our soil and that the accused had rights that might have to be momentarily delayed until recognized civilian authority could reasonably attend to them. It allowed this delay in only two circumstances, ‘when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.’ Section 9 is a list of powers specifically denied Congress; nor were they given to the president in Article 2. This strongly suggests no federal role outside these two parameters in the delay of justice — certainly no military role. The removal of any civilian role and the carting off of U.S. citizens to a foreign country without benefit of judge or jury obliterates this right.

“The Fourth Amendment deals with searches and seizures and reads in part ‘no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.’ Warrants give civil authorities the power to arrest only when the reason for the search (probable cause) has been reviewed and authorized, normally by an elected judge, who has given an oath to uphold the Constitution. He stands between the plaintiff and the defendant as the protector of constitutional law. There is no role for the military even with a president’s authorization. Tell this to the young soldiers just following orders. Freedom dies when this amendment dies.”

Jailed forever without trial: It’s ‘1984’ in America, by Paul Metzger, attorney and former professor of law, Fredericksburg.com, Jan 24, 2012


“With this law, one of the worst abuses of the 18th century has been revived. In 1789, the French revolution was partly a revolt against the widespread use of “lettres de cachet”. These were orders, issued by a minister of the king, bearing the royal seal, authorizing indefinite imprisonment of anyone named, without trial.
If Sections 1021 and 1022 sound remarkably like they resurrect the infamous lettres de cachet, you’re right.
So here we are in 21st-century America reverting to the worst practices of 18th-century autocracy. Our Constitution’s 1791 Bill of Rights was designed, among other things, to prevent the federal government from arresting anyone and holding him or her indefinitely without bail or trial. The bill’s provisions are very specific on these points.”

“In the U.S. today, the fundamental freedoms that have always defined our country are under open, wrongheaded attack in the name of national security. How well we succeed in preserving our liberties, even under the constant threat of terrorism, will ultimately define who we are as a people, and whether our country continues to proudly be “the land of the free and the home of the brave.”

‘I’m going to destroy America and dig up Marilyn Monroe’: British pair arrested in U.S. on terror charges over Twitter jokes, by Richard Hartley-Parkinson, dailymail.co.uk, January 31, 2012


“Two British tourists were barred from entering America after joking on Twitter that they were going to ‘destroy America’ and ‘dig up Marilyn Monroe’.”

“The Department of Homeland Security flagged him as a potential threat when he posted an excited tweet to his pals about his forthcoming trip to Hollywood which read: ‘Free this week, for quick gossip/prep before I go and destroy America?'”

“After making their way through passport control at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) last Monday afternoon the pair were detained by armed guards.
Despite telling officials the term ‘destroy’ was British slang for ‘party’, they were held on suspicion of planning to ‘commit crimes’ and had their passports confiscated.”

ACTA Signed By European Union; The Internet is now on full alert, by Zach Walton, webpronews.com, January 26, 2012


“The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a plurilateral international agreement which wants to set a “gold standard” for the enforcement of intellectual property rights. The Agreement will have major implications for freedom of expression, access to culture and privacy. It will also harm international trade and stifle innovation.”-European Digital Rights Group

“The EU and 22 member states signed the agreement today according to Wired.” [“ACTA — which is supported by many rights owners — has been met with widespread criticism from open rights activists, who argue that the legislation has been rushed through the legal system under the guise of being a trade agreement, when in fact it is a new copyright law. They also argue that it blurs the distinction between piracy and counterfeiting and that it criminalises copyright infringement when there are civil sanctions already.” –The EU signs up to Acta, but French MEP quits in protest, Wired.co.uk, January 26, 2012]

“The only five member states who have yet to sign the agreement are Cyprus, Germany, Estonia, Netherlands and Slovakia. They are expected to sign it soon though. Australia, Canada, South Korea, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore and the U.S. signed the agreement back in October 2011.”

“As we previously reported, the U.S. signing of the agreement is in direction violation of the Constitution as it requires any trade agreements, which ACTA is, to be approved by Congress before being signed by the president.”



“WHEREAS, the execution of parts of the NDAA may require members of the armed forces to violate their oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States,

WHEREAS, the supporters of the NDAA have said the NDAA will have the effect, and we believe it will have the effect, of allowing the President to treat the United States of America as if it was a “battlefield,” placing it under the “law of war,” and its citizens as if they were foreign enemies on a foreign “battlefield” subjecting them to the “law of war” and martial law, exactly like the people of occupied Iraq and Afghanistan are treated…

WHEREAS, granting the President the authority he would have over a foreign “battlefield,” for use against the American people, is unconstitutional and a violation of the federal government’s duty of allegiance to protect U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens…


For the above and forgoing reasons, this Legislature expresses its belief that the NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 (NDAA) is unconstitutional in authorizing the President to use war powers, the “law of war,” and/or martial law in the United States and its territories over any person, including citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States not in the military forces, and over citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States,  who are not in the military forces, anywhere in the world.

FURTHER, the Legislature expresses its sense that all provisions of the NDAA which are unconstitutional, including as noted herein above, were and are null and void from their inception and are not enforceable in this state, and it is the express policy of state’s Legislature that no officer, employee, or agent of the state will implement, enforce or otherwise support, directly or indirectly, any of the above noted unconstitutional provisions, and that a violation of such policy will be deemed a violation of their oath of office and employment agreement, and will subject them to disciplinary action up to and including termination.

FURTHER, the Legislature recognizes its duty to interpose itself between unconstitutional usurpations by the federal government or its agents and the people of this state, as well as the duty to defend the unalienable natural rights of the people, all of which is consistent with the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and with our oaths to defend the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state against all enemies, foreign and domestic…

RESOLUTION OF THE SHERIFF Against NDAA 2012, Rhodes & Fry, January 29 20121



For the above and forgoing reasons, I, (INSERT SHERIFF’S NAME), Sheriff of (INSERT COUNTY NAME) County, in the State of (INSERT STATE NAME) express my belief that the NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 (NDAA) is unconstitutional in authorizing the President to use war powers, and the “law of war,” and/or martial law in the United States and its territories over any person, including citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States not in the military forces, and over citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States who are not in the military forces, anywhere in the world.

“FURTHER, all provisions of the NDAA which are unconstitutional, including as noted herein above, were and are null and void from their inception and will not be implemented, enforced, or otherwise supported in this county, and it is the express policy of the Sheriff that no officer, employee, or agent of the Sheriff’s Office may implement, enforce or otherwise support, directly or indirectly, any of the above noted unconstitutional provisions including seizure, detention, or trial by the United States Armed Forces, and/or any other agents of the United States government, both foreign and domestic, of any person, including any United States citizen and/or lawful resident within this county, and that a violation of such policy will be deemed a violation of their oath of office and/or employment, and will subject them to discipline up to and including termination and potential arrest for assault, battery, kidnapping, unlawful detention, and other unconstitutional actions under the color of law.

“FURTHER, in keeping with my oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this state, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, I hereby express my commitment to interpose this office and stand in defense all persons including citizens and lawful residents of the United States within this county, against any and all attempts by the United States Armed Forces or any other agents of the United States government to subject the people to military force, military seizure, military detention, military trial, or to subject them to extraordinary rendition to any foreign country or entity. Such actions were among the causes of the necessity for taking up arms in the American Revolution, as is clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence…