Skip to content

Remember When You Didn’t Worry About the NDAA?

January 7, 2012

The G-Man and I have taken our share of flack over the National Defense Authorization Act recently signed into law by President Obama.  It seems we were quickly tossed back onto the crazy bench for suggesting the danger the law holds for the indefinite detention of US citizens and legal residents by the government – either in civilian or military custody.  We were told, repeatedly, that the feds wouldn’t be coming for us under this law as it has full exemptions from being used against citizens and legal residents.  So, after making our argument and having it rejected, we silently plopped down on the crazy bench and mumbled amongst ourselves about the voluntary blindness being practiced by our naysayers

I read an article about a new Senate bill introduced by Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), called the Enemy Expatriation Act (S. 1698).  This bill makes changes to Title 8 U.S.C. 1481, Loss of Nationality by Native-Born or Naturalized Citizen; Voluntary Action; Burden of Proof; Presumptions.  No big deal though right?  I mean Congress constantly amends laws in new bills.  Except for this particular amending of existing federal law.  Most Americans (especially native born Americans) don’t realize that they can lose their citizenship, but it can happen. Detailed in section 1481 are the acts a citizen can take that are considered to be voluntary actions to relinquish your citizenship.  Such actions as renouncing your citizenship orally or in writing, working in and for a foreign government, or enlisting in the armed forces of a foreign nation as examples.  Also in section 1481 are provisions for losing your citizenship for violating sections 2383 (Rebellion or Insurrection), 2384 (Seditious Conspiracy), or 2385 (Advocating Overthrow of Government) of Title 18, also considered as voluntary renunciation of citizenship.  So how does the new bill change 8 U.S.C. 1481?

The bill – if enacted into law – will add a new paragraph to section 1481, “(8) engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.; and (c) For purposes of this section, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war.”  So, it seems clear enough that this bill would provide the government with the ability to declare that a citizen has voluntarily relinquished their citizenship after the government has determined that you are a terrorist.  Of course once that has occurred then you – good citizen – are now subject to the NDAA.  The NDAA wasn’t opposed because it was law to “protect” America (meaning the Government of the United States) from terrorists, just like the Patriot Act, so everyone said.  There was no way the law could be used against citizens we were told, so just relax.  Yet, I warned that it was another piece in the puzzle to trample on the US Constitution, and I was basically poo-pooed as I was sent to sit on the crazy bench.  The other funny thing is that you, as the citizen concerned, would have the burden of proof that your actions were not voluntary!  How’s that for guilty until proven innocent?

Well folks, you are close to being considered wrong.  If this bill gets enacted, and I am afraid it will in the continuing push to protect the nation, then anyone is subject to being indefinitely detained.  The laws will piece together the authority for the government to act in a “lawful” manner.  Yet, I’m betting there will be some to tell me – again – not to worry because the bill – if enacted – won’t do what I say it will and I can relax.  Too many blind themselves to the reality of what is occurring in government.  But, hey why listen to me?  Follow the links and read it all for yourselves.  Put together the changes the bill would make to section 1481 and explain to me how I am wrong.  I really don’t mind since you already have me sitting on the crazy bench.  You can keep me here by willingly continuing to delude yourselves.  When will you start caring?

29 Comments leave one →
  1. tacitusrmars permalink
    January 7, 2012 1:33 am

    Gentlemen, thank you for blogging about the NDAA. I too have been “tossed into the crazy bin”. I remember a few weeks ago when I first heard about this horrible law. One of my high-school classmates briefly mentioned it on her FB wall. I thought to myself “Wow, if this is true, this is really serious. Furthermore, why haven’t I heard about it until today?” So, I started following it on the newswires. Astonishingly, there was very little information about it. There was too little information out there for it to be a coincidence. This semi-news-blackout continued until AFTER the bill had passed. Al Jazeera English was the first major news source I found who mentioned it’s passage. The worst thing about NDAA is how little attention people are giving it. Everyone just “holds their nose and votes” for the lesser of two evils everything election. Even when I told my parents about Mr. Obama’s failure to veto the law, my dad rationalized the news by saying “Well, he must have had a good reason for it”. How long are people going to pretend that the Dems and GOP are going to solve our problems? It’s just ridiculous. I mean, I don’t honestly know what it would take for Americans to actually wake up. The level of intentional ambivalence is breath-taking.

    • January 7, 2012 3:08 am

      Too many buy into the fiction that all these laws are for our safety, to keep the bad guys from hurting us. Sadly, far too many Americans sit quietly while more and more their rights are being legislated away from them.

  2. Anita permalink
    January 7, 2012 8:24 am

    Remember when you didn’t have to worry about the NDAA? Yeah, I remember..that was back in the simpler times! 🙂 🙂 🙂 Now take that !

    Good Morning Plainly. Why do you insist on entering the bee’s nest yet again? Except this time you left me several angles. I’ll take the Plutonian angle first (nice place you have here Charlie).You, Mr. Spoken, are off your meds I see. Making great leaps and connections to make things fit.

    Disclaimer: I did not have the energy to read the bill this time. However! I do not see how the good Senator from Conn…who’s own wife’s parents are Holocaust survivors.., would draft a bill in favor of hauling off regular citizens! How does that make any kind of sense?

    How can you leap from being hostile to voluntarily giving up citizenship? Isn’t it written somewhere in those founding documents that we are “obligated” to keep our government in check? Seems to me we’re patriots if we do this but you leap right to giving up citizenship. It doesn’t compute.

    At the same time, you knock D13 and his gang for doing the job that the Feds won’t do.Like guarding the boarder and watching parking lots where known fraud by illegals is going on. So who is the patriot?

    But answer me this ( forgive me for being repetitive my Kwajalein friend)…Why then has there not been a surge toward the White House? Where are the Oathkeepers, the NRA, the former military ‘terrorists’, the state militias, the Patriot Guard, several million tea partiers, the terrorist bloggers…do you think they are all just going to get on the bus willingly? I mean, our government has us totally oppressed…it’s just time to load up, right? Where are these groups? If we are as close to doomed as you suspect, why aren’t the guns out and boots on the ground toward DC to just throw them out?

    Again, I agree that there are too many laws designed to shut us up and keep us down. Throw another law on the heap..what is one more going to change? The longer this goes on the more I’m beginning to think that the plan is working. Create a major aura of fear with all the nonsense just to keep us quiet while they loot our pockets and bankrupt the country while they laugh all the way to the bank. A great conspiracy to get us all in the re education camps? You could very well be right. But Plainly, Mr. Libertarian to the core, freedom is a state of mind. I agree with Flag more every day. You are allowing them to win by letting them rent space in your head. We’re as free as we let ourselves be. We’re not going to voluntarily get on the bus. We must keep pushing back in every way possible. But I just about exhausted worrying about it all. Let me know when it’s time to march.. I’ll fall right in line..until then I’m just tired………….

    • Anita permalink
      January 7, 2012 8:53 am

      And since you guys are lame and never play music on your blog..and this one is pretty straight forward..Hat tip to Bottom Line for putting this one up on SUFA one day! Cheers!

    • January 7, 2012 9:34 am

      It is not time for revolution, yet! But, we should all ask ourselves, why has our government given themselves so much power? What are they expecting? Why are good, freedom loving Americans being put on a list that says “enemy of the state”? There is much more than we can see right now, just don’t close your eyes.

      • January 7, 2012 1:18 pm

        sssssshhhhhhhh, G-Man. Just put back on our rose-colored glasses and watch the pretty light…………………

    • January 7, 2012 1:11 pm

      Dear Anita,

      You are missing the point – again. The point being that you are ignoring the fact that the government is slowly, piece-by-piece, setting up removing your Constitutional rights. The great thing about it in the government’s view is that you don’t care. You feel safe. You feel arguments to the contrary come only from crazy people.

      Before you say what Lieberman will or won’t do, read the bill and the changes it makes for yourself. Senator Lieberman believes he is protecting us from the evils of the world, and the way he seems to think that is best is by providing the government more authority and you – the citizen – less.

      The Tea Party is (and has been) nothing more than a wing of the Republican Party (just as the Christian Coalition was). They aren’t interested in anything more than what the government will do to give them what they want – which isn’t freedom and liberty anymore than the mainstream Republicans or Democrats want to give you. But you keep right on trusting they have your best interests at heart.

      Uncle Sam will always be there to protect you – have no fears. You’ll likely never see any kind of detention camp anymore than I will – but you will applaud the government protection and remain complaint to the changes the government is bringing about.

      Maybe Charlie is right – let socialism ring forth in America. Apparently America needs the lessons of it right here in their faces to understand what they allowed to happen.

      • Anita permalink
        January 7, 2012 2:13 pm

        Calm down Plainly, geez. I’m on your side man! You continue to think I’m not. I agree, it’s all bullshit, OK? But if it makes you feel better, I’ll be your punching bag. Swing away..til you tire yourself out too. In the meantime I’m getting tired of just watching and waiting when the only people doing anything are THEM. Formulate up the plan and tell me what my job is. I’ll do it 110% For now, you’re directing your anger at the wrong person because I see it too. I’ve just decided to not let it run my life. The air is a little fresher here too..makes a person not so cranky.

        • January 7, 2012 4:33 pm

          Anita, Your job has already been defined! Over the last few years, you have read and learned what it is you need to do. Being prepared is an important beginning, because you must be ready to take a leadership role locally. You must know the dangers that you may be facing and be able to teach others!

    • January 7, 2012 1:50 pm

      So other, specific comments to reply to you.

      But Plainly, Mr. Libertarian to the core…

      I am not, nor have ever claimed, to be Libertarian to the core. You must be confusing me with someone that looks like me. 🙂 If I was Libertarian to the core i wouldn’t accept the ideas of VDLG.

      Disclaimer: I did not have the energy to read the bill this time.

      Kind of negates your whole argument and reply then doesn’t it?

      At the same time, you knock D13 and his gang for doing the job that the Feds won’t do.Like guarding the boarder and watching parking lots where known fraud by illegals is going on

      So, you want to have another immigration debate?

  3. Judy Sabatini permalink
    January 7, 2012 10:16 am

    Isn’t this where those FEMA camps come into play?

    • January 7, 2012 11:33 am

      They are now called “Emergency Environment Centers” There are six major ones, one in each region. KBR is now asking for contracts to run smaller ones in each state (10 to 300 people for up to 30 days). These contracts include fencing, power, ect. FEMA has enough emergency food stored to feed millions for up to 10 days.

      The gate is closing!

      • Judy Sabatini permalink
        January 7, 2012 1:58 pm

        Don’t want to sound ignorant, but what is KBR? Don’t recall hearing that one. Who would have ever thought, that things would come down to this. Just think of what we get to look forward to with 1 more year of this regime we have in D.C. Isn’t it just peachy.

        • January 7, 2012 2:04 pm

          From Wikipedia:

          KBR, Inc. (formerly Kellogg Brown & Root) NYSE: KBR is an American engineering, construction and private military contracting company, formerly a subsidiary of Halliburton, headquartered in Houston. The company also has large offices in Arlington, Birmingham, Newark, Delaware and Leatherhead, UK. After Halliburton acquired Dresser Industries in 1998, Dresser’s engineering subsidiary, The M. W. Kellogg Co., was merged with Halliburton’s construction subsidiary, Brown & Root, to form Kellogg Brown & Root. KBR and its predecessors have won many contracts with the U.S. military, including during World War II, Vietnam War and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

          Also, it may be longer than 1 year – just think how it will be if he wins re-election………

          KBR is the largest non-union construction company in the United States

          • Judy Sabatini permalink
            January 7, 2012 2:21 pm

            I repeat, we’re F***ED. Sorry for the language here, but I have yet to see one good thing this A-HOLE has done. The only thing he’s been good at is tanking this country in more ways than I can count.

            Thanks for the info on KBR Plainly, appreciate it.

    • January 7, 2012 1:15 pm

      Apparently there is no need for those camps – apathy runs strong still so we can be “detained” right in our own homes.

      • Judy Sabatini permalink
        January 7, 2012 1:58 pm

        In other words, we’re going to be F***ED.

  4. January 7, 2012 2:27 pm

    Anita, down here please.

    I am calm. I am quite secure in my settings here in the mountains. I enjoy my life up here.

    What we must do is to speak out and teach. Taking any action that could conceivably fall into one of those sections of Title 18 above is a sure trip to federal prison (and I am allergic to the inside of prison cells).

    Societies change, it is an inevitable as the sun rising. If the changes are against the principles one believes in then they must be argued against – which is what G-Man and I are doing (and be assured neither of us agrees completely with the other on every subject) – or trying to do. It’s even harder when I know my moderate thinking lets me agree with some ideas of the left as well as some of the right.

  5. January 7, 2012 2:30 pm


    Yes, more likely than not, we certainly are. If he gets re-elected (and I tend, at this time, to believe he will) he can spend the second term really doing as he pleases since it is his swan song term.

    I would bet a lot more of his progressive promises will come to life than have during this term.

    • Judy Sabatini permalink
      January 7, 2012 2:46 pm


      Seems to me, he’s doing what he darn well pleases now, not abiding with the Constitution what so ever, not going through congress about anything, not listening one bit to the people, not one bit. We’ve already gone to hell in a hand basket, what’s left.

  6. January 7, 2012 7:41 pm


    Guess I’ll join you and GMan on the bench. I agree it’s a serious attack on our rights, maybe not now, but in the coming years. How much freedom have we seen taken from us already? If you walk across the street the wrong way, they can ticket you. Refuse to pay and you get arrested.
    Moon someone and you are a sex offender. When will it happen to someone just for bending over without their shirt properly tucked? Not defending guys with plumber’s ass, but all these laws are subject to interpretation. The learned opinion of judges and others, mainly faceless bureaucrats.

    People just like those at the DMV get to decide what constitutes Rebellion or Insurrection,Seditious Conspiracy or Advocating Overthrow of Government. Why does this remind me so much of when thousands of Americans were locked up during WWI for daring to speak against the war. Some were arrested for saying so IN THEIR OWN HOMES. And the Supreme Court did rule this was unconstitutional, but now we have an totally different law. And what a law it is, arrest someone and hold them as long as you want without trial or even admitting you are holding them.

    We were just talking about Obama changing his mind on what constituted being “in secession” and recess in the senate. Doesn’t he have even more leeway on what or how to define sedition?
    And no, I won’t feel any better or differently if Newt or Romney has the power to make that same decision. There is a very old rag that has words on it saying something about a right to be judged by a jury of your peers. It either means everything, or nothing.

  7. Anita permalink
    January 8, 2012 9:15 am

    Call me a glutton for punishment….

    I took the time to read the links. Show me where they are going to haul me off. Seems the problem is over a word..’hostile’ or ‘hostilities’. to the US Govt ..while concurrently either verbally renouncing your citizenship or by way of serving in a foreign service or the other couple examples they give.

    So now you may not be hostile to the govt while renouncing your citizenship. Have any of you guys spoken hostile of your govt while verbally renouncing your citizenship?

    I think you’re safe. But go ahead..tell me I’m in denial…..again.

    • January 8, 2012 12:52 pm

      I could tell you that each section is independent of the others, but why bother since you won’t believe it?

      I could tell you that the new section (#8) that would be added is directed towards anyone involved in hostilities against the USA, but why bother since you wouldn’t believe it?

      I could tell you the sky is blue, but why bother since you wouldn’t believe it?

      Let me add that what you keep doing is refusing to see the way the laws are being written and the potential for their uses. You’re stuck on believing that we’re claiming the feds are going to haul us off to some FEMA camp – when I am trying to show you how the laws being enacted are contrary to your Constitutional rights – but again, you don’t believe it.

      • Anita permalink
        January 8, 2012 3:37 pm

        a) shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—

        (1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state
        (2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state
        (3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
        4 (A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state
        (B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state
        (5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state,
        (6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality
        (7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States,……..if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction
        (b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.

        Section 8…every subdetail…refers to voluntarily giving up your citizenship…you keep avoiding that part…i can’t put it any more Plainly than that.

  8. January 8, 2012 3:58 pm

    I have no idea why I am going to bother trying to correct your thinking again, but here goes anyway.

    First – lets focus on these words, “shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing…”

    Then jump down to (b), “Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.”

    Do you see that it is up to you to prove you did not do so voluntarily? The government has laid the presumption in the law (since 1961) that any of the acts is voluntary unless proven – BY YOU – otherwise.

    Therefore, if the new #8 does get added the government presumes you voluntarily gave up your citizenship by deciding that you were “engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.”

    And I have NOT failed to state how the voluntary part works. The failure to understand has not been mine.

    • Anita permalink
      January 9, 2012 12:17 pm

      Pretty sure that if I am going to expatriate I’m going to do it voluntarily.

      Lets apply a couple names to the laws

      American citizen Awlaki. At the very least..chumming around with known bad guys..preaching jihad..on youtube for the world to see. I see this law being applied to him. You preach hostilities against the USA, align yourself with Al Queda or their affiliates, then you are considered to voluntarily no longer be an American citizen..and you must prove otherwise.. then 1698 and 1867 apply and the USA can detain you.

      American citizen Hassan..Ft Hood, Texas. business card says SOA..known connections to Awlaki..screams Allah Akbar before blowing away several American serviceman on American soil..pretty sure that would qualify as being hostile toward the USA and you voluntarily give up your citizenship..and you must prove otherwise..(not exactly sure about this one). Then 1698 and 1867 apply.

      PlainlySpoken and Anita.. Average Americans..both love our country..trying to make sense of anything our govt connections to AQ…never a whisper of expatriating..never being hostile (as Hassan and Awlaki)…they may hold us under the Patriot Act..which I have not defended..but 1698 and 1867 do not apply to us.

      I see these laws as tools to be able to get the bad guy who you seem all to willing to protect. I don’t understand why you want to defend them. You don’t understand why I see the laws as pertaining to them not us. We’re going to have to disagree and that be the end of it. But Plainly, I’m not your average bot..I’m not drunk on the koolaid..I just see it differently than you. You’ve taken many swipes at me between the lines in both your article and your replies and I’ve tried to shake them of jokingly..but you’ve given me no reason to change my position.

      • January 9, 2012 2:24 pm

        Oh, and if you feel I am taking swipes at you – I am, on your stances. If you choose to take that personally I can’t do anything about that.

  9. January 9, 2012 2:18 pm

    No, I’ve given you plenty of reason – you choose to disagree there is any reason. So be it. To you – it seems anyway – principles don’t matter when the outcome is agreeable to you.

    American citizen Hassan..Ft Hood, Texas. business card says SOA..known connections to Awlaki..screams Allah Akbar before blowing away several American serviceman on American soil..pretty sure that would qualify as being hostile toward the USA

    Replace “Allah Akbar” with “God Bless America”, would you still consider the individual committing the act as being hostile toward the USA?

    Were McVey and Nichols acting in a hostile manner against the USA?

    Explain to me the necessity for any American citizen to be dealt with in any way other than through our civilian court system when they are accused of violating the laws of the nation? Awlaki was only on a “battlefield” to salve the minds of those who ordered and supported his assassination. Funny how the government can take all the time in the world to catch any other criminal they want outside the US, but have to assassinate him or bin Laden for that matter?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: