[act-ma] Show your support tomorrow for anti-NDAA Resolution in Worcester!

[Susan Serpa]

Worcester City Rules Committee Meeting

5:30 Thursday, June 12th

455 Main St, Esther Howland (South) Chamber, 3rd Fl.

Worcester, MA



http://www.worcesterma.gov/agendas-minutes/standing-committees/rules-legislative-affairs/current.htm



*Purpose of the city's meeting*: To vote on recommending (or not) our
anti-NDAA resolution, Restore Constitutional Governance (RCGR) to the City
Council.





*Our objective*: To persuade the 3 members of the City's Rules Committee to
recommend the RCGR to the City Council.



*Background: *

Last October 15th Ron Madnick filed at the Worcester City Council meeting
Restore Constitutional Governance Resolution (RCGR) which states that all
residents of Worcester will be guaranteed due process rights under the US
Constitution despite Sections 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 NDAA***.



Instead of voting that night, the council voted to put the Resolution in
the Rules Committee. Later the City's Solicitor wrote a legal opinion
against our resolution stating it was not within the purview of city
business and besides the NDAA isn't so bad anyway. We answered that
(1) public safety IS city business (the threat if indefinite detention of
any Worcester residents without evidence or charges is a public safety
issue); (2) Council members are obliged to honor their oath to uphold the
US Constitution; (3) the NDAA goes much further than the AUMF which was
limited to accused perpetrators of 9/11 - the offensive sections of the
NDAA has no such limitations. Furthermore, those sections do not
specifically exempt citizens from the extrajudicial process of indefinite
detention (see below*).



Over the next few months, we became aware that the Rules Committee was not
planning to do anything further. Through a phone-calling campaign they
finally relented to hold a hearing, which is the June 12th meeting above.
Whether or not the Rules Committee recommends, the RCGR will return to the
City Council to vote upon, most likely early next Fall.



** **Definition:*

NDAA, National Defense Authorization Act, is voted every year for the past
50 years to fund the military. All sections pertaining to budgetary items
expire and need renewal with subsequent NDAA's; all POLICY sections stand
indefinitely until specifically struck down by future NDAA's. Democrats and
Republicans, who generally can't agree on anything, get together and vote
every year to pass the NDAA.



Because it is a "slam-dunk", sometimes unrelated items are slipped into the
700+ page document. On New Year’s Eve 2011, the 2012 NDAA was passed
including sections 1021 and 1022 which state that the President alone and
without need for evidence nor official charges may order the indefinite
detention of anyone "suspected" of material support to a terrorist entity.
It specifically states that the extrajudicial process applies to "covered
persons". But the definition in the document of "covered persons" is
deliberately vague, leaving too much discretion on the part of just one
person, the President. Defenders of the NDAA cite the section within that
states "not required" to detain American citizens. The word "required" is
deliberately misleading. Just to illustrate and example: Is a police
officer required to give you a ticket? No, but he is authorized to do so.
 Saying indefinite detention of citizens is *not "required"* is not the
same as saying it is *not authorized*. As it stands now, yes,
the President IS authorized to detain anyone at all without ANY Due Process
and the 2012 NDAA policy pertains to all future Presidents' authorization
until specifically overturned.



Attempts to correct and overturn sections 1021 and 1022 were made and
failed: (1) in Congress (the Smith-Amash Amendment
<http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/11441-smith-amash-amendment-rejected-indefinite-detention-still-the-law>)
and (2) in the Supreme Court (Chris Hedges lawsuit
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedges_v._Obama>). President Obama signed the
2012 NDAA with the statement that he would not use the offensive
authorizations, but then his administration actively interceded when
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/us/politics/us-warns-judges-ruling-impedes-its-detention-powers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>US
District *Judge* Katherine B. *Forrest* ruled the indefinite detention
sections of the NDAA
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/us/politics/us-warns-judges-ruling-impedes-its-detention-powers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>
 unconstitutional
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/us/politics/us-warns-judges-ruling-impedes-its-detention-powers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>.
Maybe the current President is to be trusted and maybe not - but should we
trust ALL future Presidents with this much unlimited power?



 *All three branches of the Federal government have failed to preserve our
Due Process rights.  It is up to us now at the local level to claim our
rights.  *



 *Below is the Worcester Restore Constitutional Governance Resolution
(RCGR)*



 *RESTORING CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE RESOLUTION OF
WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS*



WHEREAS, the city of Worcester, Massachusetts is not a “battlefield”
subject to the “laws of war;” and



WHEREAS, Federal Judge Katherine Forrest has ruled Section 1021 of the 2012
NDAA is unconstitutional;



WHEREAS, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that neither Congress nor the
President can constitutionally authorize the detention and/or disposition
of any person in the United States, or citizen of the United States “under
the law of war” who is not serving “in the land or naval forces, or in the
Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;” and



WHEREAS, for the purposes of this resolution, the terms “arrest,”
“capture,” “detention under the law of war,” “disposition under the law of
war,” and “law of war” are used in the same sense and shall have the same
meaning as such terms have in the 2012 NDAA, Section 1021(c); and therefore



BE IT RESOLVED, that notwithstanding any treaty, federal, state, or local
law or authority, enacted or claimed, including, but not limited to, an
authorization for use of military force, national defense authorization
act, or any similar law or authority enacted or claimed by Congress or the
Office of the President directed at any person in Worcester, who is not
serving “in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual
service in time of War or public danger,” it is unconstitutional, and
therefore

unlawful for any person to:



a. arrest or capture any person in Worcester, or citizen of Worcester,
within the United States, with the intent of “detention under the law of
war,” or



b. actually subject a person in Worcester, to “disposition under the law of
war,” or



c. subject any person to targeted killing in Worcester, or citizen of
Worcester, within the United States; and be it further

RESOLVED, that Worcester requests the Massachusetts State Legislature
recognize the duty of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to interpose
itself, to protect our civil rights, between unconstitutional usurpations
by the federal government or its agents and the people of this state, as
well as the duty to defend the unalienable natural rights of the people,
all of which is consistent with our oaths to defend the Constitution of the
United States and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
against

all enemies, foreign and domestic; and be it further



RESOLVED, that Worcester, requests our Congressional delegation commence
immediately with efforts to repeal the unconstitutional sections of the
2012 NDAA, towit,

sections 1021 and 1022, and any other section or provision which will have
the same or substantially the same effect on any person in the United
States not serving “in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
actual service in time of War or public danger;” and be it finally



RESOLVED, that Worcester, requests our Congressional delegation introduce,
support, and secure the passage of legislation which clearly states that
Congress not only does not authorize, but in fact prohibits the use of
military force, military detention, military trial, extraordinary
rendition, or any other power of the “law of war” against any person in the
United States not serving “in the land or naval forces, or in the

Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger.”



Recognizing our duty to defend the Constitution of the United States and
the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as well as
recognizing the duty of “We the People” to protect our unalienable natural
rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as articulated in
the Declaration of Independence, we, the City Council of Worcester,
Massachusetts, do hereby adopt this resolution.



# # # #

Susan Serpa
617-599-5195
neimpeach at gmail.com