US military: unconstitutional orders are unlawful; defend Americans, don’t NDAA “disappear” them

US military take an Oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

The US Constitution refutes the so-called “National Defense Authorization Act” provisions for US military to seize people in America (here, here, here).  The 5th and 6th Amendments of the US Constitution promise that if the government is to seize you, they damn sure have to demonstrate you’ve committed a crime (my comments). Note that these promises apply to all persons, not just citizens:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury (that means a jury of one’s peers, not the dictatorship of “the leader” – “fuehrer” in German)… nor shall any person… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;…

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury…, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”

The Oath to the US Constitution is first and primary for the US military to defend America and our freedoms. By definition, America’s freedoms are in our Constitution. The respect Americans and the world have for US military is in proportion to upholding the freedoms in the US Constitution.

US military are trained to refuse unlawful orders. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 92 makes US military duty clear to obey lawful orders. The primary source for lawful orders is the US Constitution. A nation’s constitution are its central and defining laws.

Any order that interferes with constitutional law is by definition an unlawful order that must be refused. Using the US military to seize Americans is such an obvious breach of the US Constitution that it evokes the legal term, ab initio: void and without legal effect from the beginning. Such orders are such an attack upon the US Constitution that the closest crime I can imagine for those voting for it is treason: war upon the US Constitution and its people.

Another unlawful order would be against the 1st Amendment to interfere with Internet freedom of speech and/or Occupy movements: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.”

US military who defend the US Constitution from those attacking it will also be attacked.

Those attacks will come in various forms of threats. Requiring that orders be written, signed, and explained how they support the US Constitution might be a good first line of defense to make the choice of sides clear to your brothers and sisters in uniform.

It will take courage to defend the Constitution against predictable uses of intimidation and force. With enough US soldiers’ defense of the US Constitution, enemies to it will be seen for what they are, be isolated, and face justice.

I assert that depression and suicide of your brothers and sisters in uniform are a direct function of your being ordered into unlawful wars (resources below to explain and document). Standing for the Constitution is how you fight back.

US military: honor your Oath. Support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Be heroes for the brighter future we all feel, see, and choose to build.

The solution is to arrest and prosecute the obvious criminals in areas of war policy and corporate media that lie in provable commission and omission to continue US CRIMINAL wars.

 

US war laws explained, why Afghanistan and Iraq wars are unlawful, how to end them

Are US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan well-intended mistakes? What we now know from the evidence

Open proposal for US revolution: end unlawful wars, criminal economics (4-part series)

Occupy This: US History exposes the 1%’s crimes then and now (6-part series)

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Robert in Arabia

    A voice crying out in the wilderness…Sad

  • Shawne

    Your write up is right on the money. However, when an under-educated population does not know the facts you cannot expect them to protest changes they don’t understand.

    We have people trying to force religion into the political sphere – government sanctioned if they get their way.

    We have people being pepper sprayed for sitting in resistance.

    We have people who think global warming and evolution are false. They don’t even know the definition of the word “theory” as it applies to science.

    We have a candidate saying he would challenge judge’s rulings, to the point of removing them if necessary. He’s doing quite well in the polls, too.

    All you have to say is “terrorist” to the average citizen, and you can no longer rationalize with them: “they deserve no rights”, “they shouldn’t get a trial”, etc.

    Bin Laden is dead. The majority of the original AQ leadership is dead. We did it without the present form of the NDAA. There is zero reason we need the ability outlined in the bill. Yet, it will pass.

    We’re handing over our Constitutionally guaranteed right because of fear and ignorance.

    I’m sorry friend, you are talking to one giant brick wall.

    • http://www.examiner.com/nonpartisan-in-national/carl-herman Carl Herman

      Shawne: the hearts, minds, and will of Americans will prevail.

      Just keep moving forward.

  • Jack Ventimiglia

    While NDAA is in itself is an awful bill full of contradictions and loose language leaving way for a wide varieties of interpretations, it should be known that Sec. 1031, Part D, subsection (e) says: “Authorities- 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.”

    Also subsections (a) and (b) are specific over who NDAA applies to, save for the one phrase “associated forces” wherein these problems with interpretation could arise. So, no doubt, it’s a bad bill, but we could be sensationalizing. I guess the future will tell all.

    • http://www.examiner.com/nonpartisan-in-national/carl-herman Carl Herman

      Jack, you haven’t read the three links in this post that detail the language of the bill that SHOW the provisions that directly apply to Americans.

      I encourage any interested reader to check the language for themselves.

      Moreover, as I write in “Occupy This” in the first section concerning the 2006 Military Commissions Act, that language is clear that Americans can be dictated as “terrorists” with all removal of rights.

      Jack, if you’re working as a propagandist, time will also tell your future costs for what you work for.

      I encourage all people to understand Constitutional rights and the attacks upon them. NDAA is a last gasp of the War Criminals and looters to protect themselves. It will fail.

      • http://www.TheWoodstockConspiracy.com Sparky4Peace

        Thank you for your calmness and reassurance. I am looking forward to a more rational time.

  • AZbadfish

    Unfortunately, when the military gets an order to disappear a citizen they won’t be told ‘Hey, we don’t like this guy go get him.’ They will be told: ‘This guy is a terrorist who is committing treason against America and her people. Go get him’. They won’t know the truth, how are they supposed to say no?

    • Carl Herman

      That’s the test, AZbadfish, to determine if we deserve liberty or slavery. There is Big Brass in the military who want to act, who want to declare the “emperor has no clothes;” that will be huge.

      We’re all waiting for that show of courage.

      • Skeptic Marine

        Gen. Mattis Ftw.

  • http://www.dregstudios.com Brandt Hardin

    The NDAA only goes to further stifle our Constitutional Rights without the approval of the Americans, just as the Patriot Act was adopted WITHOUT public approval or vote just weeks after the events of 9/11. A mere 3 criminal charges of terrorism a year are attributed to this act, which is mainly used for no-knock raids leading to drug-related arrests without proper cause for search and seizure. The laws are simply a means to spy on our own citizens and to detain and torture dissidents without trial or a right to council. You can read much more about living in this Orwellian society of fear and see my visual response to these measures on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2011/09/living-in-society-of-fear-ten-years.html

  • Kathleen Moore, Canada

    THE NDAA IS NOT LAW: GO TO COURT NOW!

    UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS cannot TOUCH the Constitution. Google this in quotes: “What to do about Unconstitutional Acts – National Defense Authorization Act 2012 (NDAA)” or click here:

    http://members.beforeitsnews.com/story/1648/952/What_to_do_about_Unconstitutional_Acts_-_National_Defense_Authorization_Act_2012_NDAA.html

    Spread this video, please. I’m trying to wake people up:

    Thank you.

  • Jeffery

    I’ve been in the military and I still remember my oath, I have a question I would like answered and I would like some of our troops to answer it to see if they remember their oath.(Are you going to follow an unlawful order to detain American citizens and take them to Fema camps to be executed.)Who has a backbone to answer my question,any takers.

    • Carl Herman

      Good question, Jeffery. This article is so dated, it won’t get much traffic to have responses.

      • Jeffery

        Do you know where I can post this question that isn’t to out dated,would like to get some military troops to respond,they need to open their eyes.We need to get our military to see we already have a domestic enemy in our country.

        • Carl Herman

          Contact Veterans for Peace and Oath Keepers as starts. They’ll have great info for you. Thank you for your heart, Jeffery.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Peter-Paul/100002485527287 Peter Paul

    This tells us the kind of idiots that some people elected to Congress and the Whitehouse such that they can add a clause to the NDAA that is blatantly unconstitutional. This results from one of two causes, the elected officials are complete idiots and should never have been elected or their intent was to defy the Constitution in which case they are traitors and shouldn’t have been elected. People get your heads out of your butts!!!!

 

 

Twitter