One of our values is that we all have a duty to insure justice is done

CW3 Dick McManus — Tue, 17 Nov 2015 13:58:07 -0500

and no person is above the laws. Therefore, failing to prosecute Bush et al and Kissinger for war crimes and failing to support the teaching of American history about those leaders in the past who committed war crimes, human rights violation, and crimes, but got away with them and covered them up of the sake of patriotism.

That is, the torture and cruel and unusual treatment of POWs at Ahu Ghraib and Gitmo and by the Democratic party's failure to hold Obama responsible for failing his duty to prosecute.

The same thing applies to the mass murders on 9/11 where there is massive reasonable suspicion to demand a new Congressional investigation.

And the failure to revoke the NDAA as follows signed by Obama. Therefore, our LD's little fight is minor to the big picture. Continuing to attend the LD meetings in spite of the politically correct leadership is too important.

We never had a commitment to do nation building in Afghanistan.

Resolution to repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force and related Subtitle D, (counter-terrorism), sections 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT (NDAA) /Public Law 112-81

WHEREAS Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40, approved September 18, 2001) and consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) President. Authorization for Use of Military of the War Powers Resolution, 50 USC 1541, which reads:

“the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

AND WHEREAS the US Supreme Court, our third branch of our government, has failed to stand up to Congress and the Presidents to rule on the Constitutionality of using the US military as the world’s police officer is a “WAR. ”

AND WHEREAS the word “WAR” is historically means only using a nation’s military against an incumbent government’s military force or pirates in international waters, and it has an ending with a surrender and/or a cease-fire agreement or a peace process where a number of discrete steps are taken on each side to eventually reach the mutually desired goal of peace and signing of a peace treaty.

AND WHEREAS there was no UN Security Council resolution authorizing the US, whether or not alone or in a coalition with other countries (NATO), to invade Afghanistan AND any law that authorized violating of our UN Treaty, is in and of itself unlawful.

AND WHEREAS in addition to the AUMF the 2012 NDAA, subtitle D, which reads as follows:
SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
(a) In General.--Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) Covered Persons.--A covered person under this section is any person as follows: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
(snip)
(e) 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.

AND WHEREAS U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest, for the Southern District of New York, has ruled that these sections unlawful on the grounds that it violates the First (i.e. free speech/press) and Fifth (i.e. due process) Amendments. She explains, “the law is so vague that simply by doing their usual work, the plaintiffs (journalists) could conceivably be deemed to "substantially support" to an "associated force" of the Taliban or al Qaeda, and thereby fall under the law's sway. And “until the end of the hostilities” was also vague.

AND WHEREAS the phrase “who are captured or arrested in the United States” implies that it other people will be captured or arrested by the military and detained in a military jail.

AND WHEREAS the phrase “pending disposition under the law of war” means that once a person is deposited (placed) into a military jail or US POW camp, she/he has no right to be told what law they violated, no right to have a lawyer or to have communication with or visit(s) with her/his family, nor right to submit a writ of habeau corpus. And the only right he/she has is under international law whereby the Red Cross must be allowed to inspect the jail and must be given the names of those held in jail.

AND WHEREAS using the words, pending disposition under the law of war” defines part or all of the US as a theater of war AND only in a theater of war can a military commander capture and detain someone.

AND WHEREAS detaining a person by our military is a violation of Article III (Judicial Branch) of the US Constitution and the 4th Amendment, which guarantees that all people be treated the same under the law.

AND WHEREAS by the Constitution’s original meaning of habeas corpus this right can only be denied a person if the Congress, as an incident to its war power, “suspends” the writ for a particular time and place; and only “in cases of rebellion or invasion (where) the public safety may require it.”

AND WHEREAS it is doubtful that occasional acts of terrorism are sufficient to constitute a “rebellion or invasion.” Even if Congress could suspend the writ, a Bill of Suspension would be a serious, much-debated measure for which Congress would have to assume direct political accountability.

AND WHEREAS SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS reads as follows: (b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens.--
(1) United states citizens.--The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) Lawful resident aliens.--

AND WHEREAS you can reasonably assume that paragraph (b) of section 1022 grants the President the authority to be detain in military jail until the end of hostilities, persons who have entered the US illegally, a guest workers, and people temporarily visiting the US in violation of the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees that all people be treated the same under the law (Art. III, Judicial Branch, US Constitution).

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Authorization for Use of Military Force and related sections 1021 and 1022 of Subtitle D, (counter-terrorism

Response by CW3 Dick McManus made Nov 17 at 2015 2:00 PM

CW3 Dick McManus — Tue, 17 Nov 2015 14:00:29 -0500

When AWOL Bush’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pace and SecDef Rumsfeld were interviewed on TV about the role of US soldiers in regard to war crimes by Iraqi soldiers or other Iraqis, Gen. Pace stated that US soldiers have an ethical duty get involved and try to prevent or stop war crimes in progress. This implied the arrest of the alleged war criminals and starting an investigation of the event by US MPs, the Commanders who has operational control over the area, and/or the military criminal investigation command. Gen. Pace's by making this public statement had just in affect/effect given a verbal order which was not what was written in Army regulations. I could tell by Rumsfelds remarks on this subject that he did not agree with Gen. Pace order of ethical duty. I knew for a fact that the Army Regulation on this issue did not state this. I was maybe one of the few in America who actually realized what Gen Pace really just done, over -ruled a written order. Here is the URL/link to the video of the press conference.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/190100-1

Before Gen. Pace made his order defining the law, Army regulation only required military leaders just get out of the area as soon as possible and do nothing to a host nation military soldier or police officers who has just committed a war crime.

Defense Department Briefing

Secretary Rumsfeld and General Pace briefed reporters on military operations in Iraq, efforts to combat terrorism, and the state of security training of Iraqi forces. In his remarks Secretary…