Help strengthen alternative media by visiting our supporters

Sheepdog Supplies

Indefinite Detention Challenged In Idaho

The NDAA overtly violates over half of the Bill of Rights

Indefinite Detention Is Being Challenged In Idaho Right Now

Indefinite Detention Is Being Challenged In Idaho Right Now

by Jason Casella

The indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without due process is fundamentally un-Constitutional, un-American, and un-Idahoan. Without the right to a trial, we have no rights at all. Our founders believed so firmly in the right to trial by jury that they enshrined it in the body of the Constitution, and again in the Sixth Amendment. It is great to see such great nonpartisan support for the Restoring Constitutional Governance Act of Idaho (H473) which passed print hearing 1/31/2018 will help ensure that the rights of the people of Idaho are protected via Interposition as the father of the Constitution, James Madison recommended.

The NDAA overtly violates over half of the Bill of Rights including: Article I, Section 9- suspension clause, Article III, Section 2- grand jury indictment, Article III, Section 3- Treason, 1st amendment-free speech , 2nd amendment -right to bear arms, 4th amendment -secure in persons and papers, 5th amendment- due process, 6th amendment- speedy trial , and 8th amendment- cruel and unusual punishment.

All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” (Marbury vs.Madison, 1803.)

“That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.” -James Madison

From Huffington Post doing a three part series on the dangers of the NDAA, to coverage the New American has provided over the years, and from Rachel Maddow to Judge Napolitano, to military generals, and retired judges, people from all political stripes see the obvious dangers these provisions impose if they are to remain in effect.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has been passed for decades and is normally just a boring budgetary bill that has gotten so big over the years is too long for anyone to read and became a prime candidate to sneak un-Constitutional provisions into while no one is paying attention.

Republicans and Democrats teamed up and after a vote of 93-7 in the Senate and 283-136 in the house, President Obama signed this into law on New Year’s Eve in 2011. President Obama issued a signing statement “promising not to use these powers on American citizens” which the ACLU came out against.

Most recently, President Trump signed the NDAA and issued a similar signing statement “I note, however, that the bill includes several provisions that raise constitutional concerns.” Yet the “power” to detain anyone anywhere remains in effect until they are repealed or until the end of the “war on terror” if that ever ends.

Although, these sections are new to the NDAA, the land of the free has a long and healthy history and legal precedence for stripping American citizens of their basic fundamental human rights to due process. The power to make someone disappear should not be held by anyone no matter how much we like or trust one person. One day this power will be in the hands of someone we don’t like or trust and, even if you agree with everything the government is doing right now, one day that may change.

As long as this exists everyone will be at risk when that time comes regardless of what you stand for or against or what part of the world your ancestors came from. Yes this has already happened right here in this country to 120,000 Americans citizens of Japanese descent, Italian descent, and German descent during WWII.

Sections 1021 and 1022 are the key sections that were added to the 2012 NDAA which, up until that point, simply just funded our military. They contain the indefinite detention provisions that apply to anyone anywhere, (including American citizens on American soil) and were challenged in Federal Court in Hedges v Obama.

Judge Katherine Forrest who was appointed by the Obama Administration ruled that the NDAA was un-Constitutional and has a chilling impact on free speech. The very next day, the Obama Administration challenged the ruling and another judge overturned Judge Forrest’s decision citing the plaintiffs “lack of standing” because they have not been indefinitely detained without a charge or trial.

This is a catch 22, because if you don’t get charged or don’t get a trial, how can you get to a court to have standing? This left the indefinite detention provisions in full force ready to be applied to anyone the Federal Government deems is a “potential terrorist” without any oversight or proof required. It was at this point, when the courts failed us, that PANDA created the tools for anyone to download at the local level.

The Restoring Constitutional Governance Act (RCGA) of Idaho prohibits the Federal government from using the laws of war to detain, execute, or torture any person in the state of Idaho without trial, and applies the same punishments for assault, battery, kidnapping and murder for any Federal agents who do and state or local agents who help.

Especially in an election year, any and all legislators who plan to go back to their districts and ask that their constituents re-elect them, will have their vote on this important issue to help make their case. The people are watching and have extended an olive branch for each elected representative to do the right thing and honor the oath they took to protect and defend the constitution.

If you would like to ensure that your most basic natural rights and the rights of future generations are protected, call your elected representative and urge them to support House Bill 473 and if they refuse, we will publish a list of those who vote for and against your most basic and valued rights so you can vote accordingly in the upcoming election.

Who is PANDA? We are not an institution, we are a people. We are not an organization, we are a movement. We are not a group, a tribe, a flock, or a crowd. We are individuals, and city by city, county by county, state by state, and nation by nation, we are taking back our future.

We are People Against the NDAA, and Tyranny. Stops. Here.

NDAA is a Threat to ALL

Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here:

*edited 2.1.18, for typographical errors

2 Comments on Indefinite Detention Challenged In Idaho

  1. The infringement of our Rights and the impounding of our money due to “fighting terror”, real and/or imagined, leads right back to the document John Adam’s said was the impetus for the American Revolution.

    By James Otis;view=fulltext

    “SOON after the French Invasion of Newfoundland, the Inhabitants of Salem and Marblehead, who were concerned in the Fishery North-West of Nova-Scotia, were alarmed with Advice that a French Privateer was cruising in the Gut of Canso; and petitioned for protection for their Fishing Vessels then employed in those Seas.”

    “Upon representation made to his Excellency the Governor from a Number of Persons Inhabitants of the Towns of Salem and Marblehead, for some protection to be afforded to the Fishery, they having received an account of a French Privateer in the Gut of Canso. Advised that his Excellency give orders for fitting out the Sloop-Massachusetts, in order to proceed on a cruize, to the Gut of Canso, and Bay Vert, for the protection of the Fishery, and to continue her said cruise not exceeding one Month;…”

    “No Necessity threfore can be sufficient to justify a house of Representatives in giving up such a Priviledge; for it would be of little consequence to the people whether they were subject to George or Lewis, the King of Great Britain or the French King, if both were arbitrary, as both would be if both could levy Taxes without Parliament.”

    “Now let me state the Case in Question. Most of the principal Merchants in Salem and Marblehead, who were considerably interested in a Fishery near the Gut of Canso, in which I am told upwards of One Hundred Vessels from this Province were employed, received Ad|vice that there was a French Privateer or Pirate cruising in those Parts. It has appeared since, that this Alarm was not peculiar to this Province: It reached Quebec, from whence an armed Schooner was fitted out to look after this Frenchman. It reached New-York, from whence General AMHERST apprised me of this French Vessel.”

    “The provision made the last session for manning the King George was soon found insufficient for the purpose, and-after bearing up for a month the crew amounted to but thirty men. In this condition the ship remained, when I received advice that there were two French privateers on the coast, and that there were several more to be expected:..”

    So, the threat of a terroristic French Pirate led the Governor to spend funds without approval of the House of Representatives…and James Otis and the other Sons of Liberty resented that very much…and the resentment was stoked by further incroachments during the 1760’s.

    Give an authoritarian an inch and they will take a mile…it is best not to give them an inch in the first place.

  2. Color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.

    28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

    From whence comes these *treasonous activities within our governments?

    “We are going to have a war on terror which you can never win, and so you can always keep taking people’s liberties away. The media is going to convince everybody that the war on terror is real. The ultimate goal is to get everybody in the world chipped with an RFID chip, and have all money be on the chips, and if anyone wants to protest what we do, we turn off the chip.” Nicholas Rockefeller to producer Aaron Russo – eleven months before the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks

    Henry Kissinger in an address to the Bilderberger meeting at Evian, France, May 21, 1992: “”Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.”

    *Treason – found in Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
    The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.”

    Three named in writing elements are necessary for an offense to constitute treason:
    — an obligation of allegiance to the legal order,
    — intent to go against that legal order (US Constitution and each state’s Constitution), and then
    — action to violate that obligation.

Comments are closed.