12/29/11

General Petraeus Biography Implies Obama Not Fit for Command

By: Jeffrey Klein, Political Buzz Examiner
Examiner.com

General David H. Petraeus, retired from the United States military on August 31, 2011, at the request of President Barack Obama, so that he could accept the position of Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), located in Langley, Virginia.

This brought to a close his brilliant 37 year career, which began as a Second Lieutenant upon graduation from the United States Military Academy at West Pointe, and who’s plethora of international military decorations and honors have secured his place in history as one of the most respected military leaders of our time.

During the tenure of President George W. Bush, Petraeus was the “architect” of the now famously successful “surge” campaign that is largely credited with bringing about the “end game” to combat operations in Iraq. As a result, he was rewarded by being made the 10th Commander of the U.S. Central Command, located in Tampa, Florida, stateside with family.

In June 2010, Petraeus was asked by President Barack Obama to take a few steps down in command posts, to assume Command of U.S. and I.S.A.F. forces in Afghanistan, replacing General Stanley A. McChrystal, also a four star general, who hastily tendered his resignation and retired–as a consequence of his “off-the-record, unflattering remarks” in Rolling Stone magazine in June 2010, regarding the operational competence of V.P. Joe Biden, and other members of the Obama administration staff having purview over Afghanistan.

But, further reading into McChrystal’s situation, immediately surrounding his retirement from the U.S. Army, gives all the indications that substantively, it was more like a really well negotiated “non-disclosure agreement” punctuated by a [Obama] face-saving retirement ceremony. This includes Army Chief of Staff Casey pinned the Distinguished Service medal to his chest, followed quickly by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates doing the same thing with the Defense Distinguished Service medal.

Then, came the extraordinary parade of “perks,” first among them was that he was allowed to retain his “four star [general] rank” in retirement, even though he had not held it for the legally required three years at the time. Additionally, he was hastily appointed to the board of directors of Jet Blue Airways and Navistar, along with Yale University hiring him to teach a graduate seminar in modern leadership.

It appears that President Barack Obama had to give up a lot of treasure and political capital in payment for McChrystal’s “silence;” like Tiger Woods paying Rachel Uchitel millions of dollars for her silence, and prohibiting her from “selling” here story.

However, we now learn that General Petraeus also had a less than admirable opinion of President Barack Obama’s war theatre competence, according to the Associated Press, which received an advanced copy of the Petraeus’ soon to be released biography, “All In: The Education of General David Petraeus,” (due from Penguin Press in January).

In the book, Petraeus states that he nearly resigned when the president ordered the rapid draw down of surge troops in Afghanistan. However, he decided against such a move, believing it to be a “selfish, grandstanding move with huge political ramifications” and that now was “time to salute and carry on.”

Both General Petraeus and General McChrystal, have amazing educations, background and experience in war theatres around the world, and come from a world of character, honor and integrity–which does not mix well with the self-serving, narcissistically vagarious profile of liberal Democrats.

Regardless, their superior strategic and tactical planning and executions ultimately prevailed, in a way ratifying their “unflattering opinions” of Obama and his administration, but also properly rewarding them for their service and sacrifices to God and Country.

Just like the great end to a Tom Clancy novel.

12/29/11

Debbie Lee on Fox News 12/24/11 for “Heroes Hope Home”

12/29/11

WordPress.com takes down Bare Naked Islam – again

1389 Blog

This message arrived from someone associated with Bare Naked Islam:

Of course we are looking at WordPress to tell us why, but it seems their staff is conveniently on holidays until Jan 2nd…[still were there to take her site down, we note].

I am hoping the site can be brought back with another server if this one keeps caving in to CAIR, or whichever variation is forcing the issue.

The last time BNI was taken down, CAIR was to blame.

For what it’s worth, you can email WordPress Support at [email protected].

We would suggest that counterjihad bloggers make plans to obtain independent hosting if at all possible. WordPress.com, Google Blogger, and other free hosting sites are more subject to outside manipulation.

12/29/11

Summarizing the National Defense Authorization Act: Rendition, Detaining Americans, the Reality?

Gulag Bound
By: Maggie Thornton
Maggie’s Notebook

December 26

The huge 1000-page National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA) passed handily after being submitted late, with little time for Congress to read it. The bill funds all facets of the military. The bill was late being submitted. There was little time to read it. I remember hearing Senator Rand Paul say he would not sign it, even if he agreed with it, because he was not given the time to read it thoroughly. Senator Jim Inhofe says this is the third year in a row that the legislation has been submitted for vote long after the proper deadline for submission has passed, which this year was October 1st. To semi-quote New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, “what the hell are we paying” Congress for? The bill has been on Obama’s since December 15th. If he has signed it before leaving for Hawaii, I don’t see it reported, but I do see Holder announcing that Obama will add a Signing Statement (think “regulations”) to the legislation. See information about Signing Statements at the end of this article.

The following are some of the concerns about the NDAA 2012:

We are assured by both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate that there is nothing in this bill that expands the governments power over what it already has.

The House legislation affirmed this:

The committee supports the Executive Branch’s interpretation of the Authorization for Use of Military Force, as it was described in a March 13, 2009, filing before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. While this affirmation is not intended to limit or alter the President’s existing authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force, the Executive Branch’s March 13, 2009, interpretation remains consistent with the authorities provided by Congress.

On the Senate side, Senator Jim Inhofe’s website statement assures that language was put in the NDAA to prevent any special powers granted to anyone, that were not already law:

Terrorist Detainee Provision – The bill provides a statutory framework for military detention of terrorists. The language in this bill protects Americans and the homeland from terrorists while upholding the Constitutional rights of Americans and legal resident aliens. There is simply no provision included in this bill that would allow U.S. citizens to be arrested by the military in the United States.

To make this even more clear, Inhofe supported an amendment on the Senate floor that states “Nothing in this bill 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.”

Additionally, in order to address the concerns of the FBI, Inhofe supported language in conference that states nothing in this bill “shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.”

We are told that the bill defers to the guidance for terrorist detainees as set out in the Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF) 2001 and 2009. The AUMF requires:

Congress affirms that—

(1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad;

(2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 15 1541 note);

(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who—

(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or

(B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and

(4) the President’s authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 3 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.

Benjamin Wittes at LawFare writes that the word “belligerents” in (4) above, “strongly implies a “belligerent” is a target.

FLASHBACK: Go back to April 2010 when Senator John McCain in his S. 3081 titled Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010. S. 3081, which did not become law, proposed this:

SEC. 5. DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL OF UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENTS.

An individual, including a citizen of the United States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent under section 3(c)(2) in a manner which satisfies Article 5 of the Geneva ConventionRelative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners in which the individual has engaged, or which the individual has purposely and materially supported, consistent with the law of war and any authorization for the use of military force provided by Congress pertaining to such hostilities.

Does the NDAA allow for the detention of American citizens suspected of terrorism, and does it enable our government to hold such Americans indefinitely or until the “hostile” actions an American is suspected of supporting, have ended?

The LawFare blog has issued a new FAQ and says this:

No, though it does not foreclose the possibility either. Congress ultimately included language in the NDAA expressly designed to leave this question untouched–that is, governed by pre-existing law, which as we explain below is unsettled on this question.

So rather than a definite ‘no,’ we have a maybe. The Bush administration arrested Jose Padilla in Chicago. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals decided the AUMF did not give authority to arrest a U.S. citizen suspected of being a supporter of al-Qaeda. The Supreme Court insisted that the case go through the Fourth Circuit Court where Padilla was taken into custody. A district court judge came to the same conclusion of the Second Court of Appeals, but the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Padilla could be lawfully held, because it was “factually” assumed that he had been on the battlefield in Afghanistan, although he was arrested on American soil. Padilla went through the civilian courts, was convicted and is serving prison time.

However Wittes notes in the AUMF guidance, Nos. 3 and 4 uses the words “includes:” No. 3, the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who substantially supports al-Qaeda and the Taliban. No. 4 – includes the authority to detain belligerents. Wittes offers the possibility that those guilty of “mere support,” not “significant” support could fall under the AUMF guidelines. He makes it clear, however, that he thinks “mere support” will not be considered, but…

About the word “includes,” Wittes says:

While I don’t think it is necessary to read [Congressman] McKeon’s language as authorizing force against mere supporters, a reading that places a great deal of weight on the word “includes,” it is not a ridiculous reading either. So if the goal is really to enshrine, rather than expand, the administration’s current understanding of its authority, the language should probably be tightened to clarify two points: that “part of, or substantially supporting,” is the standard for detention, not targeting, and that “all necessary and appropriate force” is authorized against enemy groups and those nations that–in the language of the original AUMF–harbor, not merely support, them.

Does the NDAA give the President the right to transfer enemy combatants back to their country of origin for punishment (or whatever) – known as “rendition.”

Under Subtitle D — Counterrorism SEC. 1021 (c)(4):

(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

Is the Military mandated to detain terrorists?

The LawFare Blog FAQ linked above says “not really,” then explains that there is a subset of offenders who are subject to “mandatory [military] detention.” The subset is limited to al-Qaeda “or its associated forces,” (but not the Taliban or its associated forces), and then only if the detainee is associated with a specific terrorist attack. The example given is UnderWear Bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. He could have been sent home, but wisely was not. Can you imagine the outrage? Abdulmutallab entered a guilty plea in our civilian court system and is awaiting sentencing in a New York prison.

If an American citizen can be considered a belligerent, who makes that determination? What powers do the Department of Defense have in the determination?

The New American article linked below posits that Obama’s Signing Statement will answer this question, and that the likely arbiter will be the FBI.

Here are those Congressmen/women and Senators who voted ‘no’ for the legislation.

The House vote passed 283 – 136 on December 14, 2011. In the House voting nay: Amash, Bucshon, Burgess, Burton (IN), Campbell, Chaffetz, Coffman (CO), DesJarlais, Duncan (SC), Duncan (TN), Flake, Forbes, Garrett, Goodlatee, Gosar, Gowdy, Graves (GA), Griffith, Harris, Huelskamp, Huizenga (MI), Hurt, Johnson (IL), Jones, Labrador, Lummis, Mack, Mcclintock, Mulvaney, Pence, Posey, Ribble, Roe (TN), Rohrabacher, Rokita, Royce, Schweikert, Simpson, Stutzman, Tipton, Todd, Walberg, Walsh (IL), and Woodall.

In the House not voting: Bachmann, Coble, Diaz-Balart, LaTourette, Paul, Pitts, Myrick, Young (FL)

The legislation passed in the Senate 93-7 on December 1, 2011. Three Republicans voted nay: Lee, Paul, and Coburn.

New American on Signing Statements (read what NA believes Obama will change here):

A presidential signing statement is a pronouncement that the President appends to a bill he signs into law. Nowadays, this executive addendum sets forth the President’s understanding of the law and gives guidance to the myriad departments under the executive branch umbrella on how to carry out the requirements of the new legislation.

Signing statements change the laws, revoking parts of them or adding provisions to them, at the same time redefining the Constitution and nullifying its checks and balances. Using them, the President assumes all power — executive, legislative, and judicial — unto himself and does so in a manner that is beyond question, beyond debate, beyond vote, and thus beyond the reach of the American people. Constitutionally speaking, if a President does not like a piece of legislation, the only recourse allowed him is a veto. Modern Presidents, however, have two self-perpetuating habits that obviate the use of veto: engorging themselves with power not delegated to them by the Constitution and disregarding the Constitution altogether…

Presidential signing statements amount to “cherry-picking” the parts of a law that Presidents wish to follow or ignore. The uses that signing statements have been put to since they began to flourish in earnest during the Reagan administration show that no matter the “getting things done” tenor used to pronounce them by an ostensibly frustrated President, their clear intent is to subvert the law and slam the weighty wrecking ball of “executive discretion” into the paper barricades that divide the three provinces of power.

After days of research and an interest in detaining Americans for more than a year, I don’t know the answers to the above, and I don’t know any of the above are valid arguments for or against. We have only opinions, and an Attorney General we cannot trust.

I am looking for the day when all legislation not submitted in time for every Congressperson to read it, makes the legislation null and void without a vote. I count on those representing me in Washington, D.C. to clearly understand what they are voting on. I look forward to a Conservative House and Senate which will make Signing Statements illegal. I look forward to a Congress which will respect our Constitution, and Representatives and Senators who will get to a microphone each and every time either Chamber tries to abuse that power. We the People often have no way to know that our Founding documents are being bloodied and bruised by the vote of the person we send to the Hill. It was not necessary to included the detention of Americans, or foreign terrorists, in this piece of legislation. We should fund our troops without any other considerations. I want accountability.

UPDATE 12-26-11 – Some Montana citizens have started a petition to recall Senators Max Bacus and Jonathan Tester due to their vote for the NDAA 2012.

See a significant news roundup at Grumpy Opinions, and many thanks for linking this story.

12/29/11

Did You Hear the One about the Oklahoma City Bombing and Eric Holder?

Gulag Bound
By: Maggie Thornton
Maggie’s Notebook

OKC Bombing and Eric Holder:

The Story That Went to Newsweek’s Trash

December 26, 2011

If you live in Oklahoma, you know the angst over the Oklahoma City Bombing, and the disturbing feeling that not everything we heard about the story was true, or at least, some was distorted or not complete. The families of victims and those on the premises that day have written about it, interviewed about it but the official story has remained the same. Now there is information implicating current U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and a possible Fast-and-Furious-type coverup. There is a story of a recent Newsweek article published only after gutting new and damning details. Is PATCON familiar to you? Do you still question Ruby Ridge? What do you know about Elohim City and Timothy McVeigh? Was the ATF and the FBI involved in a coverup? The new information is dense and troubling. Is any of it true? I don’t know, but there is a name attached to the Newsweek article, and what the author reportedly wrote that didn’t appear in print.

I suggest readers start at Grumpy Opinions which has numerous links to recent and past articles about possible coverups and then move to the Sipsey Street article for the trashed Newsweek story. I live in Tulsa and remember that awful day well, but years after beginning a blog, I don’t think I’ve ever written about it. If you have opinions on the Oklahoma City bombing, I would love to hear them.

12/29/11

Ron Paul does interview with Iranian state TV, bashes Israel, defends Hamas

Hat Tip: BB

YouTube:

On Jan 5 2009 Ron Paul conducted an interview with Iranian state owned English language propaganda channel, Press TV, where he urges ending support of Israel, defends Hamas and tactics of suicide bombing, states that Hamas is innocent and the Israeli state are the aggressors.

“to me i look at it like it’s a concentration camp, and people are making bombs, like, they’re the aggressors?”

12/29/11

It was sort of fun having a Constitution wasn’t it?

By: Chad Kent
CDN

“[T]o bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole kingdom. But confinement of the person by secretly hurrying him to [jail], where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary force.”

William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England

After reading up on the disaster that is the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that was recently passed by Congress, I could make a laundry list of the problems with it. There are so many major problems that I was having trouble coming up with an easy way of presenting them all. Then it dawned on me – why not create an actual list! (brilliant, I know)

Before I get to the list, let’s start with a little background. The NDAA is controversial because its original text had a provision that might… well… destroy our due process rights a little. That’s kind of a big deal because due process is what protects American citizens from arbitrary imprisonment, politicians using the courts to retaliate against opponents, and all kinds of other things that oppressive, out-of-control governments might do.

In a nutshell, the right to due process guarantees that anytime the government is going to strip you of any portion of your life, your liberty, or your property it has to go through a fair process that justifies why that is an appropriate action and allows you an opportunity to defend yourself. If the NDAA is signed by President Obama – depending on which lawyer you talk to – it might allow him to use the military to indefinitely detain anyone he suspects of being a terrorist. Without charging them with a crime. Without giving them a trial.

If that sounds a little medieval to you, that’s because it is. And here’s a short list of reasons that the NDAA and the process surrounding it pose a serious danger to our freedom:

1. There should be no ambiguity about violating our rights –

“[T]he glory of the English law consists in clearly defining the times, the causes, and the extent, when, wherefore, and to what degree, the imprisonment of the subject may be lawful.”

William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England

There is still a lot of debate over whether this bill strips Americans of their due process rights. Some members of Congress insist that they amended the language to make sure that American citizens can’t be detained. But some lawyers still aren’t convinced that final bill is any better.

The fact that there is any confusion at all is completely unacceptable. When the issue being discussed involves the possibility of destroying the rights of American citizens, no member of Congress should settle for anything less than absolutely unmistakeable clarity that our rights are to be protected without exception.

In this case, not only are our Congressmen accepting the ambiguity, they seem to be creating it intentionally. When discussing the effect the new amended language would have on the possibility of the NDAA allowing the indefinite detention of Americans, Senator Dianne Feinstein said:

“this bill does not endorse either side’s interpretation, but leaves it to the courts to decide.”

In other words, Congress isn’t going to actually do anything proactive to protect our rights. They are just going to do what they have to do so that they can get home for Christmas on time and leave all that freedom stuff for the courts to figure out.

We’ve got some real staunch defenders of liberty in Washington D.C. today, don’t we? Apparently this group of politicians is so cowardly that they can’t even bring themselves to take a stand on whether American citizens should have due process rights. Unbelievable.

2. It takes more than a law to change the Constitution –

It’s extremely frightening that so many members of Congress would take a chance when it comes to protecting our due process rights. But even more troubling for me is the fact that so many Congressmen believe – and the public is willing to accept – the idea that the Constitution can be over-ridden by just passing a law.

That’s the whole point of having a Constitution – to keep the government from just doing whatever the heck it wants. The Constitution is the voice of the people declaring exactly what powers the government has permission to use. A law is basically the voice of the government. In other words, the people created this government – we are the parent and it is the child.

But if Congress can pass a law that takes precedent over the Constitution, that means the voice of the government is more important than the voice of the people in this country. That is a situation that would absolutely destroy the idea of limited government and take our freedom with it.

If members of Congress truly feel the need to violate the due process of some Americans, the people of this country gave them a process for amending the Constitution (see: Article 5). If our Congressmen aren’t willing to go through the amendment process, then they need to remember who is in charge in this country and live by the rules we have laid out for them.

3. Laws that probably won’t be abused aren’t good enough –

Most people seem to believe that the Congressmen who voted for the NDAA had honorable intentions and have a hard time imagining that our government would actually start imprisoning people at random. Because of that, they have a hard time getting too riled up over this bill.

Do I honestly believe that Barak Obama is going to start rounding people up next year and sending them to Guantanamo Bay? No I don’t. Then again, I never thought our government would try to run a car company or force me to buy health insurance either. Sometimes people surprise you.

And that’s the point. We have no way of knowing who will be running our government in 10, 15, or 20 years. So passing laws based on what we think our current politicians would do or because we trust a sitting president is extremely dangerous. We need to pass laws while also considering the flaws of human nature.

William Grayson explained this concept perfectly when the Constitution was being debated in the Virginia Ratifying Convention:

“Power ought to have such checks and limitations as to prevent bad men from abusing it. It ought to be granted on the supposition that men will be bad; for it may eventually be so.”

So whenever we grant power to the government, we should limit that power as if we thought the people in office were going to try to abuse it. There will be a lot of people who hold office over the years and eventually we are bound to elect a crook. When that bad person takes office, if there aren’t proper checks on his power he is going to use it to destroy our freedom.

When you look at it that way, somehow it doesn’t seem like such a good idea to give the president unchecked power to put American citizens in prison without a trial.

During a speech to the House of Representatives in 1807, Representative William Armisted Burwell perfectly demonstrated the mindset our modern representatives should have taken when approached with the idea of indefinitely imprisoning American citizens. In this case, Burwell is discussing a proposal to suspend habeas corpus, but his arguments would have been just as relevant had he made them in the House earlier this month about the NDAA:

“What, in another point of light, would be the effect of passing such a law? Would it not establish a dangerous precedent? A corrupt and vicious Administration, under the sanction and example of this law, might harass and destroy the best men of the country. It would only be necessary to excite artificial commotions, circulate exaggerated rumors of danger, and then follows the repetition of this law, by which every obnoxious person, however honest he may be, is surrendered to the vindictive resentment of the Government. It will not be a sufficient answer, that this power will not be abused by the President of the United States. [I don’t believe President Jefferson would] abuse it, but it would be impossible to restrain all those who are under him. Besides, [I] would not consent to advocate a principle, bad, in itself, because it will not, probably be abused.”

In other words, it’s never ok for a Congressman to vote for flawed legislation because he’s pretty sure that it probably won’t be abused. That is an incredibly careless approach to take to a situation that could lead to the violation of someone’s right to liberty.

Think about it, would you feel comfortable walking up to a random person at the mall and handing him the keys to your house along with directions on how to get there? Of course not. Sure, chances are that this person isn’t a crook and won’t use the keys to rob your home, but it’s disconcerting just to know that he even has that opportunity.

If it’s that uncomfortable to think about another person being able to take our possessions, why are so many Americans cool with giving the president the opportunity to take away our freedom?

This is why so many of us are furious over the current NDAA. Remember, we aren’t only giving this power to Barak Obama. We are also setting a dangerous example for every president that comes after him. It comes down to common sense – if you go to the mall enough times and give your keys to enough strangers eventually you’re going to come across a crook. The same is true in government – if you give enough politicians an opportunity to destroy your freedom eventually you’re going to elect one who will actually do it.

Members of Congress need to lose the cavalier attitude and start writing laws in a way that limits the possibility of abuse as much as humanly possible. It’s unacceptable for them to even allow the opportunity for this section of the NDAA to be misinterpreted in a way that poses a danger to our due process rights.

4. Issues affecting our rights should be debated publicly –

If you decided to do something that you knew was wrong, where would you do it? Probably somewhere private, where no one could see you, right?

That’s why it is very telling that some members of Congress chose to slip this section on indefinite detention into a bill that they thought would pass without much scrutiny. They are trying to hide something they know is wrong. After all, if they were proud of this provision and honestly thought that the American people would support it, why not publicize it or even make it a separate bill so everyone can see what a great job they’re doing?

But even a week after it’s passage, a Yahoo search brings up virtually no mainstream media coverage of the controversy surrounding the NDAA so clearly our politicians are making no attempt to inform the American people about it. This is just one more glaring example of the fact that many members of Congress believe that they are part of a political aristocracy that knows better than the rest of us unwashed masses.

Unfortunately for them, our government was created to serve the people – not the other way around. Let’s not forget that the people of this country are the source of all the government’s power. So any time legislation is being considered that could possibly have an effect on our rights or how they are interpreted, Congress has an obligation to have an open and extremely public debate that involves getting feedback from the public.

Nearly everything about the way this bill was handled is shady and endangers our freedom. As it stands today, Congress passed a law:

that may or may not strip Americans of their due process rights (no one knows for sure),
that absolutely violates the Constitution, and
that might give the President unimaginable power to destroy the liberty of every American citizen (but they’re pretty sure it probably won’t be abused).

No wonder no one in Congress wanted us to know about this.