URGENT:
CALL OR E-MAIL THESE OREGON LEGISLATORS AND ASK THEM TO DEFEND YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY SPONSORING A BILL AGAINST THE FEDERAL 2012 NDAA!!!
Alaska, California, Michigan and Virginia have already passed state laws against the unconstitutional sections of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and many others are attempting to pass their own. Oregonians needs to call the following representatives and ask them to sponsor a bill that defends Oregonians constitutional rights from Federal misuse of the 2012 NDAA. In short the 2012 NDAA allows the federal executive branch (the president and military) unchecked power to replace constitutional law with the ‘law of war’ in the United States, authorizing the suspension of any suspected persons constitutional rights without a trial or judicial review! That authority clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of this state, so it’s a essential that Oregon makes a law clarifying that the implementation of the ‘law of war’ in Oregon is illegal. (For more information about the history of the NDAA and the necessity for a state action law please read the informative essay below this letter.) Oregon’s Chapter of the national group PANDA (People Against the NDAA), have assisted five different counties in Oregon in officially opposing the unconstitutional provisions of the 2012 NDAA:
1) Coos County Commissioners signed a resolution against the 2012 NDAA
2) Douglas County officials sent a letter requesting the repeal of the 2012 NDAA
3) Klamath County Commissioners signed a proclamation against the 2012 NDAA
4) Josephine County has signed a proclamation against the 2012 NDAA
5) Lane County Commissioner signed a resolution against the 2012 NDAA
PANDA ~ Oregon has recently contacted 5 representatives in Oregon’s legislature to sponsor our bill proposal. PANDA ~ Oregon plans to meet with each Representative on Wednesday, February 11 and we need everyone to email or call these legislatures and ask them to;
“Please sponsor a bill that defends Oregonians from the ‘law of war’ and the indefinite detention of American citizens without a trial, authorized by 2012 NDAA”
Oregon Senate Judiciary:
[email protected]
Senator Jeff Kruse
Republican - District 1 – Roseburg
503-986-1701
[email protected]
Senator Floyd Prozanski
Democrat - District 4 - South Lane and North Douglas Counties
503-986-1704
Oregon House Judiciary:
[email protected]
Representative Brent Barton
Democrat - District 40 - Clackamas County
503-986-1440
[email protected]
Representative Bill Post
Republican - District 25 – Keizer
503-986-1425
[email protected]
Representative Jeff Barker
Democrat - District 28 – Aloha
503-986-1428
Please forward or post this letter to others ASAP, February 25th is the last day to introduce bills to Oregon's Legislature.
Sincerely,
PANDA ~ Oregon
Informative Essay On The 2012 NDAA And The Need For A State Law
On December 31st 2011, President Obama signed a bill that had overwhelmingly passed both houses of Congress and allows for the suspension of constitutional rights in the United States. This bill is known as the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Previously, the NDAA was nothing more than an annual federal law specifying the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense. However, the 2012 NDAA had one major difference hidden in one small section of the nearly 600-page document. This Section, 1021, allows for the federal executive branch to declare anywhere in the United States a potential “battlefield” on the war on terror, replacing constitutional law with the ‘law of war’. The ‘law of war’ under section 1021 authorizes the indefinite detention, rendition, and possible torture and execution of suspected Americans without a trial or judicial review. All three branches our federal system of checks and balances has failed to correct this law, forcing many Americans to rethink and reestablish the true constitutional powers of their state governments.
Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA has two major flaws that allow for American’s constitutional rights to be denied. The first flaw is created from the dangerously vague terms used to define those who may be considered suspects, or “covered persons” under the law. According to this section, suspected persons can included anyone from those who “substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces”, to as simply as “any person who has committed a belligerent act”. This broad terminology has already had a chilling impact on Americans 1st Amendment rights. Journalist, bloggers, and social media users are unsure if their activities might have “substantially supported” terrorist groups or “associated forces”. Political activist from across the political spectrum are also afraid that their demonstrations, protest, and organizing may be perceived as a “belligerent act”. The ability for these phrases to be widely interpreted is incredibly dangerous, and has the potential to turn anyone into a “covered person”.
The second major flaw of section 1021 is its authorization to detain “covered persons” under the ‘law of war’ instead of the American justice system. Anyone who is simply suspected of being a “covered person” under this section, without a trial, can be placed under the ‘law of war’. Section 1021 continues by stating that individuals who are captured or detained under the ‘law of war’ can be detained “without trial until the end of hostilities”. This is known as the “indefinite detention” provision because of the unlikely end to “hostilities” in the conceptual ‘war on terrorism’. Furthermore, under the ‘law of war’, detained suspects can be transferred to “any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity”. This provision allows suspected individuals to be sent anywhere in the world to be detained and disappeared. With no judicial oversight or congressional transparency, these black sites could likely lead to unregulated use of enhanced interrogations, torture, and even execution of suspected individuals.
Despite the barely publicized debate of section 1021 on the floors of Congress, the law was passed and approved by 75% of the House of Representatives and 93% in the Senate. Luckily, all but one of Oregon’s congressional representatives voted against this law, and Oregon was the only state in the county that had both senators’ oppose the law. Within two weeks of president Obama signing the 2012 NDAA, his administration and leading members of Congress were sued by a group of journalist, activist, and scholars including Christopher Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, and Noam Chomsky. In the lawsuit Hedges v. Obama, the first judge ruled section 1021 unconstitutional saying it clearly violated the First, and Fifth, Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The Obama administration, which originally stated that the bill would not be signed due to the unconstitutionality of section 1021, ironically appealed the judge’s decision in order to keep the section from being repealed. The Appeals Court judge avoided making any judgment on the law’s constitutionality by dismissing the case, stating that the plaintiffs couldn’t prove the law had specifically targeted them. Hedges and the other plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court and on March 28th, 2014 the Court officially refused to hear their case or judge on the constitutionality of section 1021.
As it stands, the 2012 NDAA and section 1021 remains in effect, and its broad and unclear language allows for the ‘law of war’ to be implemented on American soil, including the indefinite detention, rendition, and possible torture and execution of American citizens without a trial. Americans haven’t seen such a failure of our federal system of checks and balances since Japanese-Americans were forced into interment camps during WWII. The 2012 NDAA provides a crucial opportunity for states and local communities to rethink and correct the dangerous flaws and misinterpretations of our federalist power structure. States and their elected officials who understand their constitutional authority and civic obligation to their oath of office are making a stand to ‘uphold and defend the constitution’ against the 2012 NDAA. Alaska, California, Michigan, and Virginia have all passed state laws opposing its implementation, and Oregon should be next.
Oregon’s chapter of the national group PANDA, (People Against the National Defense Authorization Act) is leading an effort to secure the constitutional rights of Oregonians from the bottom up. PANDA~Oregon’s goal is to pass a state law that would criminalize the implementation of the ‘law of war’ in its jurisdiction. To create public awareness and political pressure needed to pass a state law, PANDA~Oregon’s has been working with county Commissioners and county Sheriffs to pass and sign resolutions against the 2012 NDAA. We’ve assisted the following counties in their official opposition to the 2012 NDAA and to affirm the protection to their resident’s constitutional rights;
1) Coos County Commissioners signed a resolution against the 2012 NDAA
2) Douglas County officials sent a letter requesting the repeal of the 2012 NDAA
3) Klamath County Commissioners signed a proclamation against the 2012 NDAA
4) Josephine County has signed a proclamation against the 2012 NDAA
5) Lane County Commissioner signed a resolution against the 2012 NDAA
Its time to pass a state law that also affirms the constitutional rights of the people and criminalizes the implementation of the ‘law of war’ and the denial of the constitutional rights of Americans authorized by the 2012 NDAA. Since Oregon had the most Congressional representatives oppose the 2012 NDAA than any other state, it make sense we pass the strongest state law against its unconstitutional provisions. The proposed law should simply require everyone in the state to strictly follow our state laws on civil and criminal due process without exceptions. This law would not be necessary if the federal government had ensured citizens constitutional rights by repealing or amending section 1021. Unfortunately, over the past three years all three branches of the federal government have failed to provide Americans with the clarity needed to assure their rights wouldn’t be denied by this law. This inaction requires states to provide this necessary clarity through laws of their own.
For more information concerning the 2012 NDAA or the state law that would prevent its denial to Oregonians constitutional rights please contact PANDA ~ Oregon at [email protected] or go to https://www.facebook.com/pandaOR1776
--
Colin Farnsworth
PANDA ~ Oregon State Coordinator
[email protected]
Feel free to contact us at anytime for more information or visit:
1) PANDA ~ Oregon Youtube channel
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvVPBv-oZoli5NnE_MC6BRQ
2)PANDA ~ Oregon Facebook page
www.facebook.com/pandaOR1776
3) PANDA’s National website:
www.PANDAunite.org
CALL OR E-MAIL THESE OREGON LEGISLATORS AND ASK THEM TO DEFEND YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY SPONSORING A BILL AGAINST THE FEDERAL 2012 NDAA!!!
Alaska, California, Michigan and Virginia have already passed state laws against the unconstitutional sections of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and many others are attempting to pass their own. Oregonians needs to call the following representatives and ask them to sponsor a bill that defends Oregonians constitutional rights from Federal misuse of the 2012 NDAA. In short the 2012 NDAA allows the federal executive branch (the president and military) unchecked power to replace constitutional law with the ‘law of war’ in the United States, authorizing the suspension of any suspected persons constitutional rights without a trial or judicial review! That authority clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of this state, so it’s a essential that Oregon makes a law clarifying that the implementation of the ‘law of war’ in Oregon is illegal. (For more information about the history of the NDAA and the necessity for a state action law please read the informative essay below this letter.) Oregon’s Chapter of the national group PANDA (People Against the NDAA), have assisted five different counties in Oregon in officially opposing the unconstitutional provisions of the 2012 NDAA:
1) Coos County Commissioners signed a resolution against the 2012 NDAA
2) Douglas County officials sent a letter requesting the repeal of the 2012 NDAA
3) Klamath County Commissioners signed a proclamation against the 2012 NDAA
4) Josephine County has signed a proclamation against the 2012 NDAA
5) Lane County Commissioner signed a resolution against the 2012 NDAA
PANDA ~ Oregon has recently contacted 5 representatives in Oregon’s legislature to sponsor our bill proposal. PANDA ~ Oregon plans to meet with each Representative on Wednesday, February 11 and we need everyone to email or call these legislatures and ask them to;
“Please sponsor a bill that defends Oregonians from the ‘law of war’ and the indefinite detention of American citizens without a trial, authorized by 2012 NDAA”
Oregon Senate Judiciary:
[email protected]
Senator Jeff Kruse
Republican - District 1 – Roseburg
503-986-1701
[email protected]
Senator Floyd Prozanski
Democrat - District 4 - South Lane and North Douglas Counties
503-986-1704
Oregon House Judiciary:
[email protected]
Representative Brent Barton
Democrat - District 40 - Clackamas County
503-986-1440
[email protected]
Representative Bill Post
Republican - District 25 – Keizer
503-986-1425
[email protected]
Representative Jeff Barker
Democrat - District 28 – Aloha
503-986-1428
Please forward or post this letter to others ASAP, February 25th is the last day to introduce bills to Oregon's Legislature.
Sincerely,
PANDA ~ Oregon
Informative Essay On The 2012 NDAA And The Need For A State Law
On December 31st 2011, President Obama signed a bill that had overwhelmingly passed both houses of Congress and allows for the suspension of constitutional rights in the United States. This bill is known as the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Previously, the NDAA was nothing more than an annual federal law specifying the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense. However, the 2012 NDAA had one major difference hidden in one small section of the nearly 600-page document. This Section, 1021, allows for the federal executive branch to declare anywhere in the United States a potential “battlefield” on the war on terror, replacing constitutional law with the ‘law of war’. The ‘law of war’ under section 1021 authorizes the indefinite detention, rendition, and possible torture and execution of suspected Americans without a trial or judicial review. All three branches our federal system of checks and balances has failed to correct this law, forcing many Americans to rethink and reestablish the true constitutional powers of their state governments.
Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA has two major flaws that allow for American’s constitutional rights to be denied. The first flaw is created from the dangerously vague terms used to define those who may be considered suspects, or “covered persons” under the law. According to this section, suspected persons can included anyone from those who “substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces”, to as simply as “any person who has committed a belligerent act”. This broad terminology has already had a chilling impact on Americans 1st Amendment rights. Journalist, bloggers, and social media users are unsure if their activities might have “substantially supported” terrorist groups or “associated forces”. Political activist from across the political spectrum are also afraid that their demonstrations, protest, and organizing may be perceived as a “belligerent act”. The ability for these phrases to be widely interpreted is incredibly dangerous, and has the potential to turn anyone into a “covered person”.
The second major flaw of section 1021 is its authorization to detain “covered persons” under the ‘law of war’ instead of the American justice system. Anyone who is simply suspected of being a “covered person” under this section, without a trial, can be placed under the ‘law of war’. Section 1021 continues by stating that individuals who are captured or detained under the ‘law of war’ can be detained “without trial until the end of hostilities”. This is known as the “indefinite detention” provision because of the unlikely end to “hostilities” in the conceptual ‘war on terrorism’. Furthermore, under the ‘law of war’, detained suspects can be transferred to “any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity”. This provision allows suspected individuals to be sent anywhere in the world to be detained and disappeared. With no judicial oversight or congressional transparency, these black sites could likely lead to unregulated use of enhanced interrogations, torture, and even execution of suspected individuals.
Despite the barely publicized debate of section 1021 on the floors of Congress, the law was passed and approved by 75% of the House of Representatives and 93% in the Senate. Luckily, all but one of Oregon’s congressional representatives voted against this law, and Oregon was the only state in the county that had both senators’ oppose the law. Within two weeks of president Obama signing the 2012 NDAA, his administration and leading members of Congress were sued by a group of journalist, activist, and scholars including Christopher Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, and Noam Chomsky. In the lawsuit Hedges v. Obama, the first judge ruled section 1021 unconstitutional saying it clearly violated the First, and Fifth, Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The Obama administration, which originally stated that the bill would not be signed due to the unconstitutionality of section 1021, ironically appealed the judge’s decision in order to keep the section from being repealed. The Appeals Court judge avoided making any judgment on the law’s constitutionality by dismissing the case, stating that the plaintiffs couldn’t prove the law had specifically targeted them. Hedges and the other plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court and on March 28th, 2014 the Court officially refused to hear their case or judge on the constitutionality of section 1021.
As it stands, the 2012 NDAA and section 1021 remains in effect, and its broad and unclear language allows for the ‘law of war’ to be implemented on American soil, including the indefinite detention, rendition, and possible torture and execution of American citizens without a trial. Americans haven’t seen such a failure of our federal system of checks and balances since Japanese-Americans were forced into interment camps during WWII. The 2012 NDAA provides a crucial opportunity for states and local communities to rethink and correct the dangerous flaws and misinterpretations of our federalist power structure. States and their elected officials who understand their constitutional authority and civic obligation to their oath of office are making a stand to ‘uphold and defend the constitution’ against the 2012 NDAA. Alaska, California, Michigan, and Virginia have all passed state laws opposing its implementation, and Oregon should be next.
Oregon’s chapter of the national group PANDA, (People Against the National Defense Authorization Act) is leading an effort to secure the constitutional rights of Oregonians from the bottom up. PANDA~Oregon’s goal is to pass a state law that would criminalize the implementation of the ‘law of war’ in its jurisdiction. To create public awareness and political pressure needed to pass a state law, PANDA~Oregon’s has been working with county Commissioners and county Sheriffs to pass and sign resolutions against the 2012 NDAA. We’ve assisted the following counties in their official opposition to the 2012 NDAA and to affirm the protection to their resident’s constitutional rights;
1) Coos County Commissioners signed a resolution against the 2012 NDAA
2) Douglas County officials sent a letter requesting the repeal of the 2012 NDAA
3) Klamath County Commissioners signed a proclamation against the 2012 NDAA
4) Josephine County has signed a proclamation against the 2012 NDAA
5) Lane County Commissioner signed a resolution against the 2012 NDAA
Its time to pass a state law that also affirms the constitutional rights of the people and criminalizes the implementation of the ‘law of war’ and the denial of the constitutional rights of Americans authorized by the 2012 NDAA. Since Oregon had the most Congressional representatives oppose the 2012 NDAA than any other state, it make sense we pass the strongest state law against its unconstitutional provisions. The proposed law should simply require everyone in the state to strictly follow our state laws on civil and criminal due process without exceptions. This law would not be necessary if the federal government had ensured citizens constitutional rights by repealing or amending section 1021. Unfortunately, over the past three years all three branches of the federal government have failed to provide Americans with the clarity needed to assure their rights wouldn’t be denied by this law. This inaction requires states to provide this necessary clarity through laws of their own.
For more information concerning the 2012 NDAA or the state law that would prevent its denial to Oregonians constitutional rights please contact PANDA ~ Oregon at [email protected] or go to https://www.facebook.com/pandaOR1776
--
Colin Farnsworth
PANDA ~ Oregon State Coordinator
[email protected]
Feel free to contact us at anytime for more information or visit:
1) PANDA ~ Oregon Youtube channel
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvVPBv-oZoli5NnE_MC6BRQ
2)PANDA ~ Oregon Facebook page
www.facebook.com/pandaOR1776
3) PANDA’s National website:
www.PANDAunite.org
Related Posts:
Lane County Commissioners Historic PANDA/NDAA Ordinance: DEC. 16th 2015
#NDAA PANDA~Oregon: Response to Sept 9th Lane County Commissioners Meeting
NDAA~Open Letter to #LaneCounty BOC on the #NDAA Culpable Mental States
#NDAA Action Alert~Lane County BOC Voting on Ordinance Options for #Oathkeepers
NDAA---Lane County Moves to Pass Ordinance Against Federal Indefinite Detention
SCOTUS---Supremes Refused to Hear Legal Challenges to the NDAA
NDAA---Lane County BOC Public Hearing & Comments on RCGI April 15, 2014
Oath Keepers Public Meeting in Coos Bay February 22, 2014
TEA Party---Video of Brookings TEA Party January 18, 2014
RCGI---Time to Support Oath Keepers & Make a Public Comment to The World
RCGI---Open Letter to OR State Representative Wayne Krieger
RCGI---Douglas and Lane County Lobby our Senators against NDAA
RCGI---The Jim Bice Radio Show with Stewart Rhodes founder of Oath Keepers
ATF---It’s time to submit comments on proposed NFA rule changes!
RCGR----The New NDAA will cost YOU $5,700
RCGR---Legislative Defense Manual
If You Value Your Liberties, Stay Out of Coos Bay, Oregon!
RCGR---Coos Bay City Council Rejects Promise of Federalism and Oath
City of Coos Bay---City Council Meeting Votes to adopt RCGR September 17, 2013
RCG Resolution Against the NDAA 2012----Updated 9/7/2013
Obama administration hiding info on targeted killings of Americans - senator
THE U.N. & LOCAL AGENDA 21
THE U.N. & AGENDA 21:
Lane County Commissioners Historic PANDA/NDAA Ordinance: DEC. 16th 2015
#NDAA PANDA~Oregon: Response to Sept 9th Lane County Commissioners Meeting
NDAA~Open Letter to #LaneCounty BOC on the #NDAA Culpable Mental States
#NDAA Action Alert~Lane County BOC Voting on Ordinance Options for #Oathkeepers
NDAA---Lane County Moves to Pass Ordinance Against Federal Indefinite Detention
SCOTUS---Supremes Refused to Hear Legal Challenges to the NDAA
NDAA---Lane County BOC Public Hearing & Comments on RCGI April 15, 2014
Oath Keepers Public Meeting in Coos Bay February 22, 2014
TEA Party---Video of Brookings TEA Party January 18, 2014
RCGI---Time to Support Oath Keepers & Make a Public Comment to The World
RCGI---Open Letter to OR State Representative Wayne Krieger
RCGI---Douglas and Lane County Lobby our Senators against NDAA
RCGI---The Jim Bice Radio Show with Stewart Rhodes founder of Oath Keepers
ATF---It’s time to submit comments on proposed NFA rule changes!
RCGR----The New NDAA will cost YOU $5,700
RCGR---Legislative Defense Manual
If You Value Your Liberties, Stay Out of Coos Bay, Oregon!
RCGR---Coos Bay City Council Rejects Promise of Federalism and Oath
City of Coos Bay---City Council Meeting Votes to adopt RCGR September 17, 2013
RCG Resolution Against the NDAA 2012----Updated 9/7/2013
Obama administration hiding info on targeted killings of Americans - senator
THE U.N. & LOCAL AGENDA 21
THE U.N. & AGENDA 21:
RSS Feed
