Border Pact puts Canadians under new U.S. National Defense Act

Senator Rand Paul Speaks about the real war – The U.S. Government vs. The U.S. Constitution

If you value your liberty – watch Senator Paul!

I have read about two different legislative developments in the last couple of days. The first is the U.S. National Defense Act. The second is the new Canada U.S. security agreement. These are interesting developments.

First – The U.S. Defense Act

A couple of days ago I saw a link in the comments section of  the Globe and Mail to an article about a new U.S. National Defense Act. The article describes an Orwellian situation. The author of the article commented that:

“The ACLU’s Washington legislative office explains:

The Senate is gearing up for a vote on Monday or Tuesday that goes to the very heart of who we are as Americans. The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself.

***

The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world.

***

The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself. The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday.

***

I know it sounds incredible. New powers to use the military worldwide, even within the United States? Hasn’t anyone told the Senate that Osama bin Laden is dead, that the president is pulling all of the combat troops out of Iraq and trying to figure out how to get combat troops out of Afghanistan too? And American citizens and people picked up on American or Canadian or British streets being sent to military prisons indefinitely without even being charged with a crime. Really? Does anyone think this is a good idea? And why now?

***

In support of this harmful bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explained that the bill will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.” Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because “America is part of the battlefield.”

***

The senators pushing the indefinite detention proposal have made their goals very clear that they want an okay for a worldwide military battlefield, that even extends to your hometown.”

On June 12, 2011, Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, has written Senator Carl Levin and Senator John McCain, expressing concern about this new National Defense Act.  I recommend reading the complete letter, but it includes:

“One especially troubling provision of the House bill expands the military targeting and detention powers of the president well beyond what is authorized by the current Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF).  The AUMF was enacted following the 9/11 attacks to permit the US to target and detain persons connected to the attacks or who harbored those responsible. The proposed provision allows for the military targeting of undefined forces “associated” with al Qaeda and the Taliban, as well as those deemed to be “substantially supporting” those forces, with no connection to 9/11.  The provision is both overbroad and unnecessary.  The military has not asked for more authority and the administration has said it does not need it.  Of particular concern is the absence of careful congressional deliberation and debate on the issue, as occurred with prior AUMFs.  Such an expansion should not be taken lightly when the consequence is the power to summarily kill suspects or to detain them indefinitely without trial.  Should Congress wish to expand the president’s power to use military force it should do so in a bill intended specifically for that purpose, not by inserting a provision into a bill considered essential for other reasons.

I suspect that, once again, (as was the case with FATCA) Congress has not read the law they are voting on!

Second – The U.S. Canada Border Agreement

The  Government of Canada AKA “Harper Government” has been negotiating a new border agreement with the U.S. The Toronto Star ran an article noting that under the agreement:

“Armed U.S. police officers will for the first time be allowed to operate in Canada along with the RCMP as part of far-reaching changes in Canadian-American border operations to be unveiled next week by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Barack Obama.”

I wondered whether this would mean that armed IRS agents would eventually come to Canada.

Third – Interaction Between The National Defense Act and the Canada  U.S. Border Agreement

What is the possible interaction between the U.S. National Defense Act and the new Canada U.S. border security agreement? What would the implications be? Turns out that somebody has already thought about this. Have a look:

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/news/canadian_sovereignty/2011/11/29/2021.html

“The U.S. Senate is moving to enact a law that would allow military troops to march on U.S. soil and arrest American citizens with no due process, no trial, no legal representation and no protection under the Bill of Rights. Americans could be thrown in secret military prisons, interrogated, tortured and held indefinitely without ever being charged with a crime.

It’s all part of the new “National Defense Authorization Act” (S.1867) which features a section called the “worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial” provision.

By joining the so-called Security Perimeter, Canadians will be also subject to America’s National Defense Authorization Act (S.1867).

The U.S. Senate is apparently rushing to get the National Defense Authorization Act (S.1867) passed to coincide with the official singing of the Security Perimeter.

In order for Canadians to get better access to Target, Canadians will be giving up all their rights to a Totalitarian State South of the Border.

Canadians will loose their rights and freedom if the apparent ‘archons’ associated with the Security Perimeter officially consolidate.  U.S. troops through NORTHCOM will have open access to round-up Canadians protesting the Tar Sands, or Canadians doing anything which undermines the ability of elites to pursue insatiable profit and power. Do we, as Canadians, want to give up all our rights and freedoms in order to have easier access to Target?”

Internet site reference: http://www.naturalnews.com

Dear Prime Minister Harper and President Obama – please, say it isn’t so!

Advertisements

One thought on “Border Pact puts Canadians under new U.S. National Defense Act

  1. renounceuscitizenship Post author

    I came across an exceptionally good post on this topic at:

    http://blogsensebybarb.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/is-anyone-else-really-concerned-about-national-defense-authorization-act-s-1867/

    It includes the following:

    ” Fortunately, the Founders of the republic foresaw that corrupt and vicious men might attempt to change the Constitution they had written on their own, without a Constitutional Convention. They therefore commanded that all officers of the United States understand that their primary duty was to defend, even unto the death, not the president, not any of the institutions that they had established, not even the territory or the people of the United States. Because the Oath was given such an elevated place, to be not sworn or signed at some point in the commencement of duties, but sworn in public before the eyes of all before any other official action, it was to be understood that defense of the Constitution, against all enemies both foreign and domestic, comes first, and would require the dropping of all other business in the hour of mortal danger. ”

    The United States Constitution needs to be protected from the current United States Government.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s