By The Right Scoop


Allen West, a conferee on the NDAA, reads from the bill summary report and from page 657 to prove that the NDAA does not grant any new powers of military detainment of the American people.

Watch:

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop


Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • Anonymous

    Thank you Mr. West. That was succinct.

    It appears O’s signing of this and his follow-up statement regarding it is…wait for it…a Lie.

    O’ just wants to make conservatives as angry as possible. It seems he wants to make southern states as angry as possible too with that tool he keeps in his pants pocket called Holder. He wants some one or some group to rise up and “make his day”.

    No, we are going to make our own day, en masse, in November. A peaceful shot heard ’round the world.

    • http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo Ozzie

      O’ just wants to make conservatives as angry as possible.

      You nailed it- If he starts getting swarmed by the conservative base as the next election approaches, the Republican candidate will not be the issue (neither will Obama) but instead the stories will be about the extremist Tea Party that are already causing the chaos in Congress, implying the question- Do you really want them in charge? Remember that he plays the victim as he always sees himself as one (and so does everybody else who doesn’t want to be responsible for themselves) and generally speaking, people getting ‘attacked’ get sympathy and a rise in approval as people get fed up with the ‘attackers’.

    • Anonymous

      IF we get to November still free, I hope you’re prepared for an anything-but-peaceful event. It may be free or it may be peaceful, but it won’t be both. Holder’s war on voter ID laws all by itself guarantees that. The intensity has been building for three years now. obama is no longer trying to enrage conservatives; he’s just doing whatever he wants in the sure and certain knowledge that we’re all such a bunch of daisies that we won’t oppose him.

      He could be wrong, but his arrogance is so great that I don’t think he can even grasp the concept of himself being wrong.

  • Anonymous

    I’d like to know how many, if any, new prisoners have been brought to Gitmo since Obama was sworn in. He gets a lot of credit in conservative circles for using drones and killing so many bad guys. He’s not being tough to defend this country. He doesn’t care how much intelligence might come out of interrogating someone caught in the field. I think he’d rather kill them then have them brought to Gitmo.

    • http://www.therightscoop.com/ The Right Scoop

      That’s exactly why I don’t give him credit for the drone strikes. It’s the easy way out and the ‘pieces of the puzzle’ dies with the enemy killed by drones.

      It’s like he doesn’t want us to know what the puzzle looks like.

      • Anonymous

        Barack Obama is a really bad guy. I mean to the bone bad.

      • http://black-avenger-1.livejournal.com/profile VirusX

        Well, I can say one thing about Obama: he has done one thing right, and it is something that I would’ve done as president:

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/jul/06/obama-detention-terror-suspect-us-navy-ship

        I’d say: “Sure. I’ll close Gitmo down as a prison.” Then I’d turn around and by an old freighter, reassign the prison personnel to it, transfer the prisoners, send over some DIA and CIA personnel as my NEW high value prisoner interrogation unit, and issue a top secret order that prisoners are to be disappeared to this ship, in lieu of Gitmo detention.

        And there they would remain, where they would be tried by military tribunal, and, if found guilty, buried at sea.

  • Anonymous

    Why couldn’t we have found this man 10 years ago. Can you imagine West vs Obama? Put that debate on Pay Per View!!!

  • Anonymous

    The Truth is always more interesting but boring.

  • Anonymous

    Maybe this is what they need to start doing. Bring the actual bill and read it to the media so they have a more difficult time making things up about it.

    • Anonymous

      Yes!

  • Anonymous

    Colonel West is hitting the bully pulpit with irrefutable facts, substantiated evidence that most bullies who attempt to cheat life through various means and tactics cannot tolerate.

    Clarity is medicine hard to swallow by those who refuse to face the facts and live in reality. War is hell, and, boy, we have both boots steeply entrenched in it right now, due to the subversive magnitude of our enemies’ efforts to change the context of our principles.

  • http://doorwaybuck.com CM Sackett

    ABRAHAM LINCOLN WAS RIGHT, “I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong.”

    * Page WHAT… Mr. West?

    There are only 565 pages to the whole CONSTITION MURDERING, TREASONOUS ‘bill’…

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf

    * If that language (the TRUE MEANING of all that damn lawyer bull) WAS NOT THERE (in the ‘addendums’, ‘exceptions’, etc.)… then why did this senator say THIS on the floor of the Senate… THREE DAYS AFTER that piece of toilet paper you held up in defense of YOUR VOTE?

    BTW, Mr. West… this senator was on the same damn panel you were. He’s the man that brought this P.O.S. to the Senate floor for a vote. So it could be passed “before Christmas”.

    NOTE: You are correct sir, in the semantics of your statement. The language of these provisions WAS “Amended”… but the lawyer-speak, ALLOWING THE SINISTER CORE PURPOSE OF THEIR NEVER-BEFORE-PRESENTED IDEAS in a piece of American Legislation…. REMAINS.

    CM Sackett

    • http://black-avenger-1.livejournal.com/profile VirusX

      Remember: ultra-leftist, racist and America hater Carl Levin (AH – MI), confirms what was just said. This bill was made at the president’s specifications.

    • StNikao

      One commenter at Sen. Udall’s video said – IF we enforced our immigration laws, and did not admit enemy nationals to this country, we would not have had 9/11…

      Did you know that this year 4500 Iranians are due to receive ‘diversity visas’ to come to the US?

      WHY on earth … because the liberals have trained their brains to deny truth and live on feelings and delusions, wishes and their own thoughts…they have departed from God’s definitions and standards of Truth, Love and respect for Life. Blinded by sin and darkness.

    • http://doorwaybuck.com CM Sackett

      Also note – for the first time EVER (I haven’t found any reference in ANY legislation to such in my research thus far), the sovereign ground of this Republic (the lands, waters and skies of this nation) have been termed a “Battlefield”.

      Specifying AMERICA a “battlefield” in the very same line of thought and purpose as places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, etc… strategically and by INTENT makes any ‘action’ by anyone the government deems a threat –
      a COMBAT ACTION.

      …see rules, allowances and powers conferred upon the military when dealing with any such ‘combat action’.

      • Anonymous

        I thought that Rand Paul, and others were saying that the part of the bill that excluded the US and its citizens was removed, as well, then signed by the president. It sounds like the part that was removed, might be what Allen West just read.

      • Anonymous

        Good point. Thanks for being your own person and having a brain and not just falling for what they tell us hook line and sinker like some mackeral.

  • StNikao

    Perhaps when Obama said he regretted signing this bill, he meant he hated the new powers it authorized against his Muslim brothers and their shared cause.

    Don’t think the election will be a slam dunk, despite Obama’s low approval ratings.
    Over the holidays, Obama and Hillary were still voted the most admired persons in the US.

    Not only that – Obama plays dirty with many tricks and many friends to help.

    Some of their options:
    – Holder’s attempts to prevent voter Photo IDs
    – Hurried amnesty (and voting registration) for illegal aliens.
    – OWS/Arab Spring/Union type civil unrest (aka mob violence – think LA riots) Jimmy Hoffa Jr. promised violence in Obama’s presence at a fundraiser this Fall.
    – Voter intimidation, coercion
    – Paid votes, community team organizers, busses
    – Vote count fraud – an array of possibilities from hacking to trunk fulls of fraudulent votes, double or multiple state residency voters…
    – Americans Elect, a possible attempt to short-change/short-circuit the elections with a third party candidate (divide and conquer). This organization is already very well funded by unknown donors and has registered in all 50 states.
    – Aggressive voter registration in Democratic areas

    That’s all I can think of off the top of my head…

    • Anonymous

      From what I’m reading in Peter Schweizer’s “Throw Them All Out,” Warren Buffet has spent billions lobbying for his railroad investments based on oMOBa’s promise of the high-speed rail system for the U.S. There will be some BIG dollars coming from his corner.

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous

    this dirt bag is a lier

    • http://www.facebook.com/jas7751 Jay Aubrey

      no, but he can spell.

  • http://www.davemacleod.net/ dmacleo

    and yet heres old uncle ronny talking about it on infowars..

    ron paul is giant piece of shit.

  • Anonymous

    Does anyone know what kind of clothes we should bring to the FEMA concentration camps?

    Just like the health care bill, we will find out soon, what’s really in this bill.

    • Anonymous

      I think they usually strip you naked, put you through decontamination and put you in stripes, but I don’t know what the new garb might be. Nobody can find the camps let alone the clothes.

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous
    • Anonymous

      The interesting thing is that the scenario that this lays out has already been done with peaceful militia groups. They were detained, then released after no charges were brought, but under this new act, they could disappear.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Aaron-Sheamus-Reale/1217208778 Aaron Sheamus Reale

    Hey CM Sackett: Here is what he was reading! http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt329/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt329-pt1.pdf

    (its page 268 online, I don’t know where 657 came from)

  • Anonymous

    There was no page 657 in the final bill. It “only” had 565 pages.

    Here is the final bill (HR 1540):

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf

    Also note that when Rep. West is reading from page 657 (of the previous version of this bill, which was 920 pages) he says “the requirement to detain a person in military custody UNDER THIS SECTION…” There are hundreds and hundreds of “Sections” in this bill.

    The Section that is in question, and President Obama references in his “serious reservations” signing statement, is Section 1021, which is on page 265 of the final bill linked to above.

  • Anonymous

    You realize of course after this, Glenn Beck has to call out Rep./Col. West a nefarious progressive/devil/facist/nazi/commie.

    ‘The truth has no ageneda’ *eye roll* just say’in.

  • John Moore

    Does he really set the record straight? Here is what Obama signed…

    http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/NDAA-Conference-Report-Detainee-Section.pdf

    While it is easy to believe that because most of us aren’t terrorists or breaking any laws, that we have no reason to be concerned — we took a close look at the language of the 2012 NDAA amendments to see where exactly the facts lie.

    •Section 1021 of the NDAA allows the U.S. military to indefinitely detain, without due process, any person engaged in “hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners … without trial until the end of hostilities.”

    •Section 1022 expressly states that the military will imprison anyone who is a member of al-Qaeda or “an associated force” that acts like al-Qaeda; and anyone who planned or carried out an attack, or attempted attack, against the U.S.

    •Section 1022 continues that detaining American citizens is not required. “UNITED STATES CITIZENS — The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”
    The bottom line is the government can imprison anyone suspected of or even associated with terrorism. This power is open to wide interpretation and could certainly be abused.

    After signing the NDAA, Obama released a statement saying “the [NDAA] does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.”

    This appears to be untrue. The September 18, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) allows “[T]he President … 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.”

    The connection between detaining those responsible for 9/11, and imprisoning any “associated force” that acts like the terrorist group, seems unclear.

    • Amy

      The unclear nature is what is worrisome. We currently see how a clearly defined document like the Constitution and Bill of Rights is ‘interpreted’ by those we elect. This is bad, bad news. I’m very disappointed to see the NDAA passed as is. My brain goes all kinds of places with this – especially seeing the current mood the nation is in.

  • Dan

    Concerning NDAA
    again….think about what is happening to our country…we now have a Person as President who just spit on the Constitution ,that means he has spit in your face,if some one can spit in your face do you think they care about what happens to you…elections have consequences…if you voted for this usurper you have voted against the Constitution….you may be witnessing the end of America as we know it….are you ready?????????

    We now have a lawless regime in place…you can ignore it all you want…IT WONT IGNORE YOU !!!!!!
    http://youtu.be/tYI1PY-b-ro http://youtu.be/lO6yQvODZjI

  • Elaine Willingham

    It’s not about the NEW powers, it’s about the ones that were not revised from the Patiort Act that are the problem, read this carefully http://www.naturalnews.com/034538_NDAA_American_citizens_indefinite_detainment.html

  • Anonymous

    Dear Mr. West, I want to assume you have good intentions and are not purposely misleading the public away form recognizing the Constitutional dangers of this bill.

    Your analysis appears to be incorrect of the section of the bill you read in the above video. (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.—
    This states the requirement to detain does not extend. That however, does not rule out the unConstitutional option to detain a U.S. Citizen. It still very much exists according to this paragraph.

    Please consider that governments across the board historically always grow and always wind up diminishing the rights and freedoms of their people. The U.S. government in particular has had a nasty habit lately of abusing and overreaching any power that it was legitimately given.

    Remember you have taken more than one oath to preserve, protect, defend the Constitution. That is a whole different matter than what has been going on for the last 10 years of building committed enemies worldwide with a reckless, bullying, and meddling foreign policy and then building a police state at home in the name of protecting Citizens from the increased anger directed against the U.S.

    Let’s live a moral government policy of minding our business, taking care of our own business, correcting the problems we have at home, defending our country – not globe-trotting around the world in places where we don’t belong and where we are not wanted, and protecting what this country is all about – freedom and liberty.

    I hope you get it, Sir. Good luck to you.

  • Anonymous

    Where can I read page 657? And in fact where can I read or skim through the entire NDAA. I do not appreciate debating factuality. Facts should be established clearly, before positions are taken and defended.
    Think for yourselves, trust no other person to spoon feed you the actual facts. Not Alex, not Beck, not West; nobody. A=A

  • http://normanhooben.blogspot.com/ Storm’n Norm’n

    Please explain this: (from http://EndtheLie.com/2011/12/16/crushing-disinformation-surrounding-indefinite-detention-of-americans-under-the-ndaa/#ixzz1lT9cuytC)

    “On page three of the PDF, under Subtitle D – Counterterrorism, Section 1021, which is page 654 of the original document, we read starting on line 19, “The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following: (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.”

    How any sane individual could read, “Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities,” and think that this does not explicitly codify indefinite detention is beyond comprehension.”