Reason for NDAA: Dictator can silence American dissent against their criminal leaders says veteran human rights defender Don De Bar.
By signing the National Defense Authorization Act 2012, President Barack Obama was granted absolute and near dictatorial powers over American citizens primarily to silence dissent to corrupt leadership according to a Press TV interview of human rights defender, Don De Bar on Wednesday.
In a powerful Press TV interview Wednesday with a key national anti-war human rights defender, Don De Bar, regarding the reason and purpose behind the government's new National Defence Authorization Act, described as an attack on fundamental freedoms of U.S. citizens, De Bar said, "If the government wasn't afraid of going to court and proving someone was a terrorist before they acted against them, then the government wouldn't need this law," according to a rushed transcript emailed to Deborah Dupré.
In other words, the NDAA FY2012, called "U.S. Martial Law," reason for being enacted is to prevent Americans from holding corrupt leaders accountable. Instead, the rulers will silence dissenters according to De Bar.
"People in this country right now are - for the first time in my memory, and I'm in my late 50s - concerned on a mass scale about where their rent's going to come from; where their next meal is going to come from. They're not even worried about putting their kid through college or things that most people consider luxuries, but the people have expected here in this country.
"Now they're worried about the things that people around the world have been worried about for a very long time, and so this seems somewhat esoteric to people, because there hasn't been much coverage in the commercial media here, and because they're preoccupied with their survival."
De Bar stated that one only needs to "go back to the Nixon administration to look at the 'enemies list,' to imagine the power that was just granted to - or seized by - Barak Obama in the hands of Richard Nixon, who could only dream about such things while he was called an imperial president.
"And also during the Nixon and post-Nixon period, the CO-INTELPRO program where they actually assassinated dissidents in this country in a concerted program.
De Bar said CO-INTELPRO has since been documented and exposed by Ray McGovern and former US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, among others.
"Now, all of those things were, under American law, illegal and no one ever had to face the music for that," De Bar asserted.
"Nixon resigned and went back to practicing law, making big deals between Russia and the United States, Ford, I don't know where he went - he went to play golf - and Carter is running around supervising people's elections."
NDAA is all about criminalizing dissent; dissent is about standing up against criminal leaders
De Bar highlighted two points that have not been widely discussed among rights advocates regarding NDAA FY2012 now codified and legal:
"Number one, you can't impeach a president for was doing something that was just approved 86 to 14 or something in the Senate or by a two to one majority in the House of Representatives.
"And number two, the people that were told 'you must vote for Barak Obama instead of John McCain' and 'you must vote for, before that, the Democrat Kerry before a Republican, because we have to be concerned about who gets appointed to the Supreme Court or our civil rights will be gone...'Well, now, we have either the Bush court, or judges that are appointed by the very same guy that signed this (NDA Act) into law the day before yesterday and who, we were told by Senator Carl Levin, was actually the architect of it: the "constitutional scholar" architect of this law."
Press TV said, "Before we go to the issue of the U.S.'s so-called war on terrorism and the global fight, let's focus on this issue of internal dissent, so to speak, in America.
"How much do you think this law is about that and about giving the authorities the power to tackle the dissent in the United States?"
De Bar replied, "In my opinion, it is entirely about that," hihglighting the U.S. law that existed and managed to protect Americans from 'terrorism' from 1776 until they passed NDAA, "basically."
"You had the incident in New York City in 2001 where something like 3,000 people died and it's still unclear exactly who is responsible, because we've already gone to war upon Iraq and finished the longest war we've ever had over that, and now, Iran was just found in a US court to be responsible, and they killed Osama Bin Laden for doing it."
"This is entirely about dissent in the U.S.," De Bar restated.
"The very tools that were codified on Saturday by the signature of Barak Obama have been sought by presidents in this country going back to the Alien and Sedition Acts [4 bills passed in 1798 by the Federalists in the 5th US Congress], but particularly aggressively since Harry Truman, and particularly, again, Richard Nixon, and, yet again, with Barack Obama's predecessor George Bush II.
"We're talking about essentially being able to arrest without process, and the incarceration without process, of anyone, and the killing without process of anyone that the executive branch deems to be a threat, without a process to make the determination."
De Bar wrote to Dupré in a Skype communication after the interview, "ANYONE who has caught the attention of the executive branch - Department of Justice, FBI, the military - anyone - can be picked up and held indefinitely without any process, charge or opportunity to challenge their arrest and detention.
"That leaves everyone, essentially, screwed."
In the Press TV interview, he said, "It is essentially a declaration by a party in authority and then these actions follow.
"These things have actually been done already and they have targeted in the main, over time, American dissidents, and not so-called 'terrorists' or 'suspected terrorists' from abroad.
In his parting comment, De Bar said that, "with respect to the link between those two things, for the very first time in law, American citizens are finding out that they stand in exact parity in relation to the people who've been the target of the national activity of this country around the world, the foreign policy in this country around the world, in that before, whenever a president said we have to bomb these people, to blow this person up and declare war on this person, everyone fell into rank behind them.
De Bar says that for some Americans, it is the first time they realize "they now stand in relation on exact parity with the people who've been the victims of that policy internationally, and are now victims themselves."
"And so it's going to be interesting to see - that may even create a solidarity with people around the world that's an unintended consequence which could lead to the downfall of the architects of this policy."
Comments