Indefinite Detention Isn’t the Only Troubling Thing About NDAA

Constitution BurningAaron Cynic writes at Diatribe Media:

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 breezed through Congress and headed to the White House, even though public opposition to parts of the bill, now directed at President Obama in the hope of a hail Mary veto, remains strong. The most troubling aspects of the bill violate fundamental rights provided in the U.S. Constitution to American citizens by giving the government sweeping power to indefinitely detain citizens without trial. Like many other pieces of legislation, this year’s NDAA is another push in a long series of movements marching the U.S. Towards a hard right, nearly fascist state.

In addition to this, the NDAA also contains troubling language regarding Department of Defense interests in Iran, China, Wikileaks, defense contractors and more. A report from a conference on the NDAA contains tough talk in respect to both China and Iran. Considering the amount of saber rattling many warhawks have already engaged in, one has to wonder seriously whether the U.S. Could further engage in military actions towards Iran and what exactly, the DOD believes our attitude towards the Chinese will be in the coming year. The bill contains an amendment which requires economic sanctions towards entities in Iran as well as a provision for “an independent review of current U.S. Capability gaps to counter Iran and China” (emphasis mine). The conference report also says it “takes steps to ensure that the United States is fully prepared to defend our vital interests against an emerging competitor” in regards to China.

Given the information dumps from Wikileaks over past two years, as well as the horrid treatment of Private Bradley Manning, on trial for providing information to Wikileaks, the Pentagon is very interested in keeping other potential whistleblowers at bay. The Defense Department’s research arm already expressed interest this year in employing a disinformation campaign against would be Wikileakers. The NDAA conference report codifies that interest, saying it:

Requires the Secretary of Defense to establish a comprehensive program to detect unauthorized uses of classified information. Requires technological solutions, updated policies and procedures, and enforcement measures to assist with detection of such unauthorized activities.

Read the full post at Diatribe Media.

, , , , , , , ,

  • http://twitter.com/TweetedFilms The Cannibal Donut

    “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety” - Benjamin Franklin 

    • Andrew

      And tough shit for the rest of us.

    • DeepCough

      Isn’t it strange that we keep quoting that and yet our civil liberties are still being eroded away?

      • Anarchy Pony

        The Empire doesn’t care what the people think, it does what it wants.

        • RockFace

          I can hear Obama in his office right now… (mufflled Obama voice) “That’s right, I do what I want!!”  

          • Anarchy Pony

            Well, it would probably do what it wants despite whatever the current president wants too. I suspect that if a president isn’t on board then they get taken to a back room and are shown a never before seen angle of the JFK assassination. (to partially quote Bill Hicks)
            But Obama I’m pretty sure has been a two faced corporate whore the whole time anyway.

    • EyeoftheAxis

      They that voted for the lesser of two evils, convinced that a black guy
      would never sell the U$A down river, deserve to now be under suspicion
      for putting boxes of matches on layaway at the dollar store. ( or something like
      that ) — Ben Funkin

  • http://twitter.com/TweetedFilms The Cannibal Donut

    “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety” - Benjamin Franklin 

  • Andrew

    And tough shit for the rest of us.

  • Jess R

    RE “Towards a hard right, nearly fascist state.” The US almost IS a fascist state: Read Naomi Wolf’s THE END OF AMERICA – now in convenient documentary form. http://www.endofamericamovie.com/

  • Jess R

    RE “Towards a hard right, nearly fascist state.” The US almost IS a fascist state: Read Naomi Wolf’s THE END OF AMERICA – now in convenient documentary form. http://www.endofamericamovie.com/

  • Dr. Foo

    I think its just gotten to the point ,where people who pretend its not as bad as it is, get the glaring wake up call. ”
    Hello, welcome to Nazi– er i mean Guantan-America- freedom and justice for all ( who can afford to change the laws in their corporation’s favor) 

  • Dr. Foo

    I think its just gotten to the point ,where people who pretend its not as bad as it is, get the glaring wake up call. ”
    Hello, welcome to Nazi– er i mean Guantan-America- freedom and justice for all ( who can afford to change the laws in their corporation’s favor) 

  • Dr. Foo

    I think its just gotten to the point ,where people who pretend its not as bad as it is, get the glaring wake up call. ”
    Hello, welcome to Nazi– er i mean Guantan-America- freedom and justice for all ( who can afford to change the laws in their corporation’s favor) 

  • Anarchy Pony

    Haters gonna hate, Power’s gonna consolidate… uh more power for… itself. That sounded better when I first thought it up.

  • Anarchy Pony

    Haters gonna hate, Power’s gonna consolidate… uh more power for… itself. That sounded better when I first thought it up.

    • Jamie Lee

      Well said, anarchy pony! ;)

      • Anarchy Pony

        Well thank you. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/agent139 Jamie Lee

    Well said, anarchy pony! ;)

  • Anarchy Pony

    Well thank you. 

  • DeepCough

    Isn’t it strange that we keep quoting that and yet our civil liberties are still being eroded away?

  • Anarchy Pony

    The Empire doesn’t care what the people think, it does what it wants.

  • RockFace

    I can hear Obama in his office right now… (mufflled Obama voice) “That’s right, I do what I want!!”  

  • RockFace

    I can hear Obama in his office right now… (mufflled Obama voice) “That’s right, I do what I want!!”  

  • will

    Obama will sign and Ron Paul will disappear. Long live king Obama.

  • will

    Obama will sign and Ron Paul will disappear. Long live king Obama.

    • Anarchy Pony

      Right, because Paul is the messiah dipped in chocolate that will make it all better.

  • Anarchy Pony

    Well, it would probably do what it wants despite whatever the current president wants too. I suspect that if a president isn’t on board then they get taken to a back room and are shown a never before seen angle of the JFK assassination. (to partially quote Bill Hicks)
    But Obama I’m pretty sure has been a two faced corporate whore the whole time anyway.

  • Anarchy Pony

    Right, because Paul is the messiah dipped in chocolate that will make it all better.

  • EyeoftheAxis

    They that voted for the lesser of two evils, convinced that a black guy
    would never sell the U$A down river, deserve to now be under suspicion
    for putting boxes of matches on layaway at the dollar store. ( or something like
    that ) — Ben Funkin

  • S. Riley

    Will Congress Expand The Defense Authorization Act To Include YOU as a “Covered Person?”

    It is problematic U.S. Government in the future will want to expand the
    scoop of Section 1021 in the passed Defense Authorization Act of 2012
    (to include as “covered persons” for Indefinite Detention, not only
    persons “suspected of substantially supporting al-Qaeda or the Taliban;
    or their associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United
    States or its coalition partners” (but add to the list of “covered
    persons” (other) alleged terrorists and organizations foreign or
    domestic. Currently what constitutes (1) a terrorist act, (2) supporting
    terrorists or (3) being a “Belligerent” is broadly vague and not
    clearly defined? For example, Americans attending a protest
    demonstration against a U.S. Policy or U.S. Military Action could be
    charged with all (three) under the Patriot Act and The Defense
    Authorization Act of 2012.

    Provisions in The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 govern the
    “Authority of the President and Armed Forces to Detain (Covered Persons)
    without trial pursuant to the (AUMF) Authorization for Use of Military
    Force.

    FYI: Glenn Greenwald recently wrote an article titled “Three myths about
    the detention bill” that deeply examine provisions of The Defense
    Authorization Act including wording that is broadly vague, that
    potentially could cause the indefinite incarceration of Americans
    without trial; and conflicting definitions of “Covered Persons” in
    provisions (A) & (B) of section 1021. You may read Glen Greenwald’s
    article at:
    http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/

    Is The Passed Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (retroactive) To Detain Americans?

    The Defense Authorization Act of 2012) appears more threatening to
    Americans than Hitler’s (1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS. Hitler’s laws set
    time limits that Germans could be incarcerated for e.g., Serious
    Disturbance of the Peace and Rioting. But Senators Carl Levin and John
    McCain’s bill broadly mandates holding Americans indefinitely in
    Military Custody for being a “Belligerent.”

    Why should anyone be surprised President Obama insisted on indefinite
    detentions of U.S. Citizens in The Defense Authorization Act? It was
    widely known that Obama gave a speech in May 2010 at a Security
    Conference that proposed, incarcerating anyone in indefinite detention
    without evidence of wrongdoing that government deemed a “combatant” or
    likely to engage or support a violent act in the future; including U.S.
    Citizens.

    Now that Obama has signed The National Defense Authorization Act of
    2012, Obama like Hitler, will have the power to arrest members of
    Congress, drag U.S. Citizens off the street and from their homes to be
    imprisoned indefinitely based only on Government’s premise someone is a
    “Combatant” or Belligerent” having or likely to engage in or support a
    violent act in the future or do something that (might) threaten National
    Security.

    Now that Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012,
    could millions of lawful U.S. activists be subject to indefinite
    military detention. When you examine Obama’s May 2010 speech, it appears
    Obama wanted (retroactive power) to incarcerate anyone that government
    alleged had (prior) committed or supported violent acts on the premise
    he or she is likely to engage in or support violent acts in the future:
    some U.S. activists may be vulnerable because no activist knows what
    other activists or groups they associated or networked did in the past
    or might do illegally in the future domestically or overseas. U.S.
    Government need (only allege) a person; group, organization current or
    former inmate—has committed or might commit a violent act or threaten
    U.S. National Security to order Indefinite Detention of Americans in
    military custody with no evidence whatsoever.

    Historically when countries have passed police state laws like S.1867,
    many Citizens abstain from politically speaking out; visiting activists
    websites or writing comments that might be deemed inappropriate by the
    Government, i.e. cause someone to be investigated or detained in
    Military Custody. Are some writers dead-meat with Obama’s signing of S.
    1867? It is foreseeable any “American” who writes on the Internet or
    verbally express an opinion against any entity of U.S. Government or its
    coalition partners may under the Patriot Act and The Defense
    Authorization Act of 2012 be deemed by U.S. authorities a “Combatant or
    Belligerent” or someone likely to engage in, support or provoke violent
    acts or threaten National Security. U.S. Government can too easily
    allege an author’s writings inspired Combatant(s) or Belligerent(s) in
    the past; could in the future or currently, to order an author’s
    indefinite military detention.

    It is problematic that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved
    in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings or
    allowed legal counsel that are interrogated, will be prosecuted for
    non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions)
    while held in Indefinite Military Detention. Obama will have the power
    to override the U.S. Constitution. Obama will have the power to detain
    indefinitely any American without probable cause or evidence. What
    American will dare speak out against the U.S. government now that Obama
    has signed The Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

    Obama appears to be centralizing the power of federal Government, by
    getting legislation passed that U.S. government can potentially use to
    intimidate and threaten any individual or corporation. Hitler got passed
    similar laws shortly before the burning of the German Parliament
    building blamed on the communists: immediately after the fire, Hitler
    used his prior passed police-state laws to coerce corporations and
    influential Citizens to support passage of fascist legislation e.g., the
    (1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS / DECREE OF THE REICH PRESIDENT FOR THE
    PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE AND STATE that suspended provisions of the
    German Constitution that protected Citizens’ freedoms and civil
    liberties. Senators Carl Levin and John McCain’s (Defense Authorization
    Act of 2012) appears more threatening to Americans than Hitler’ (1933
    DISCRIMINATORY LAWS. Hitler’s laws set time limits that Germans could be
    incarcerated for e.g., Serious Disturbance of the Peace and Rioting.
    But Senators Carl Levin (D) and John McCain’s ® bill broadly mandates
    holding Americans indefinitely in Military Custody for being a Combatant
    or Belligerent. A U.S. Police State Government can use The Defense
    Authorization Act; and Patriot Act that includes more than 350 civil
    asset forfeiture laws to threaten or seize the assets of any corporation
    or individual; to strong-arm U.S. corporations, institutions and others
    to support government actions including passage of more Police State
    (Fascist) legislation that will intimidate, threaten and curtail the
    civil liberties of Americans.

    Immediately Below: compare The 1933 Nazi Decrees with Senators Carl
    Levin and John McCain’s National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

    1933. ROBL. I 83.

    DECREE OF THE REICH PRESIDENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF

    THE PEOPLE AND STATE

    Note: Based on translations by State Department, National Socialism,
    1942 PP. 215-17, and Pollak, J.K., and Heneman, H.J., The Hitler
    Decrees, (1934), pp. 10-11.7

    In virtue of Section 48 (2) of the German Constitution, the following is
    decreed as a defensive measure against Communist acts of Violence,
    endangering the state:

    Section 1

    Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of
    the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions
    on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion,
    including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right
    of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic,
    and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders
    for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also
    permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

    Section 2

    If in a state the measures necessary for the restoration of public
    security and order are not taken, the Reich Government may temporarily
    take over the powers of the highest state authority.

    Section 4

    Whoever provokes, or appeals for or incites to the disobedience of the
    orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities
    subject to then for the execution of this decree, or the orders given by
    the Reich Government according to Section 2, is punishable—insofar as
    the deed, is not covered by the decree with more severe punishment and
    with imprisonment of not less that one month, or with a fine from 150 up
    to 15,000 Reichsmarks.

    Whoever endangers human life by violating Section 1, is to be punished
    by sentence to a penitentiary, under mitigating circumstances with
    imprisonment of not less than six months and, when violation causes the
    death of a person, with death, under mitigating circumstances with a
    penitentiary sentence of not less that two years. In addition the
    sentence my include confiscation of property.

    Whoever provokes an inciter to or act contrary to public welfare is to
    be punished with a penitentiary sentence, under mitigating
    circumstances, with imprisonment of not less than three months.

    Section 5

    The crimes which under the Criminal Code are punishable with
    penitentiary for life are to be punished with death: i.e., in Sections
    81 (high treason), 229 (poisoning), 306 (arson), 311 (explosion), 312
    (floods), 315, paragraph 2 (damage to railroad properties, 324 (general
    poisoning).

    Insofar as a more severe punishment has not been previously provided
    for, the following are punishable with death or with life imprisonment
    or with imprisonment not to exceed 15 years:

    1. Anyone who undertakes to kill the Reich President or a member or a
    commissioner of the Reich Government or of a state government, or
    provokes to such a killing, or agrees to commit it, or accepts such an
    offer, or conspires with another for such a murder;

    2. Anyone who under Section 115 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious
    rioting) or of Section 125 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious disturbance
    of the peace) commits the act with arms or cooperates consciously and
    intentionally with an armed person;

    3. Anyone who commits a kidnapping under Section 239 of the Criminal
    with the intention of making use of the kidnapped person as a hostage in
    the political struggle.

    Section 6

    This decree enters in force on the day of its promulgation.

    Reich President

    Reich Chancellor

    Reich Minister of the Interior

    Reich Minister of Justice

  • S. Riley

    Will Congress Expand The Defense Authorization Act To Include YOU as a “Covered Person?”

    It is problematic U.S. Government in the future will want to expand the
    scoop of Section 1021 in the passed Defense Authorization Act of 2012
    (to include as “covered persons” for Indefinite Detention, not only
    persons “suspected of substantially supporting al-Qaeda or the Taliban;
    or their associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United
    States or its coalition partners” (but add to the list of “covered
    persons” (other) alleged terrorists and organizations foreign or
    domestic. Currently what constitutes (1) a terrorist act, (2) supporting
    terrorists or (3) being a “Belligerent” is broadly vague and not
    clearly defined? For example, Americans attending a protest
    demonstration against a U.S. Policy or U.S. Military Action could be
    charged with all (three) under the Patriot Act and The Defense
    Authorization Act of 2012.

    Provisions in The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 govern the
    “Authority of the President and Armed Forces to Detain (Covered Persons)
    without trial pursuant to the (AUMF) Authorization for Use of Military
    Force.

    FYI: Glenn Greenwald recently wrote an article titled “Three myths about
    the detention bill” that deeply examine provisions of The Defense
    Authorization Act including wording that is broadly vague, that
    potentially could cause the indefinite incarceration of Americans
    without trial; and conflicting definitions of “Covered Persons” in
    provisions (A) & (B) of section 1021. You may read Glen Greenwald’s
    article at:
    http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/

    Is The Passed Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (retroactive) To Detain Americans?

    The Defense Authorization Act of 2012) appears more threatening to
    Americans than Hitler’s (1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS. Hitler’s laws set
    time limits that Germans could be incarcerated for e.g., Serious
    Disturbance of the Peace and Rioting. But Senators Carl Levin and John
    McCain’s bill broadly mandates holding Americans indefinitely in
    Military Custody for being a “Belligerent.”

    Why should anyone be surprised President Obama insisted on indefinite
    detentions of U.S. Citizens in The Defense Authorization Act? It was
    widely known that Obama gave a speech in May 2010 at a Security
    Conference that proposed, incarcerating anyone in indefinite detention
    without evidence of wrongdoing that government deemed a “combatant” or
    likely to engage or support a violent act in the future; including U.S.
    Citizens.

    Now that Obama has signed The National Defense Authorization Act of
    2012, Obama like Hitler, will have the power to arrest members of
    Congress, drag U.S. Citizens off the street and from their homes to be
    imprisoned indefinitely based only on Government’s premise someone is a
    “Combatant” or Belligerent” having or likely to engage in or support a
    violent act in the future or do something that (might) threaten National
    Security.

    Now that Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012,
    could millions of lawful U.S. activists be subject to indefinite
    military detention. When you examine Obama’s May 2010 speech, it appears
    Obama wanted (retroactive power) to incarcerate anyone that government
    alleged had (prior) committed or supported violent acts on the premise
    he or she is likely to engage in or support violent acts in the future:
    some U.S. activists may be vulnerable because no activist knows what
    other activists or groups they associated or networked did in the past
    or might do illegally in the future domestically or overseas. U.S.
    Government need (only allege) a person; group, organization current or
    former inmate—has committed or might commit a violent act or threaten
    U.S. National Security to order Indefinite Detention of Americans in
    military custody with no evidence whatsoever.

    Historically when countries have passed police state laws like S.1867,
    many Citizens abstain from politically speaking out; visiting activists
    websites or writing comments that might be deemed inappropriate by the
    Government, i.e. cause someone to be investigated or detained in
    Military Custody. Are some writers dead-meat with Obama’s signing of S.
    1867? It is foreseeable any “American” who writes on the Internet or
    verbally express an opinion against any entity of U.S. Government or its
    coalition partners may under the Patriot Act and The Defense
    Authorization Act of 2012 be deemed by U.S. authorities a “Combatant or
    Belligerent” or someone likely to engage in, support or provoke violent
    acts or threaten National Security. U.S. Government can too easily
    allege an author’s writings inspired Combatant(s) or Belligerent(s) in
    the past; could in the future or currently, to order an author’s
    indefinite military detention.

    It is problematic that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved
    in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings or
    allowed legal counsel that are interrogated, will be prosecuted for
    non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions)
    while held in Indefinite Military Detention. Obama will have the power
    to override the U.S. Constitution. Obama will have the power to detain
    indefinitely any American without probable cause or evidence. What
    American will dare speak out against the U.S. government now that Obama
    has signed The Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

    Obama appears to be centralizing the power of federal Government, by
    getting legislation passed that U.S. government can potentially use to
    intimidate and threaten any individual or corporation. Hitler got passed
    similar laws shortly before the burning of the German Parliament
    building blamed on the communists: immediately after the fire, Hitler
    used his prior passed police-state laws to coerce corporations and
    influential Citizens to support passage of fascist legislation e.g., the
    (1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS / DECREE OF THE REICH PRESIDENT FOR THE
    PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE AND STATE that suspended provisions of the
    German Constitution that protected Citizens’ freedoms and civil
    liberties. Senators Carl Levin and John McCain’s (Defense Authorization
    Act of 2012) appears more threatening to Americans than Hitler’ (1933
    DISCRIMINATORY LAWS. Hitler’s laws set time limits that Germans could be
    incarcerated for e.g., Serious Disturbance of the Peace and Rioting.
    But Senators Carl Levin (D) and John McCain’s ® bill broadly mandates
    holding Americans indefinitely in Military Custody for being a Combatant
    or Belligerent. A U.S. Police State Government can use The Defense
    Authorization Act; and Patriot Act that includes more than 350 civil
    asset forfeiture laws to threaten or seize the assets of any corporation
    or individual; to strong-arm U.S. corporations, institutions and others
    to support government actions including passage of more Police State
    (Fascist) legislation that will intimidate, threaten and curtail the
    civil liberties of Americans.

    Immediately Below: compare The 1933 Nazi Decrees with Senators Carl
    Levin and John McCain’s National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

    1933. ROBL. I 83.

    DECREE OF THE REICH PRESIDENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF

    THE PEOPLE AND STATE

    Note: Based on translations by State Department, National Socialism,
    1942 PP. 215-17, and Pollak, J.K., and Heneman, H.J., The Hitler
    Decrees, (1934), pp. 10-11.7

    In virtue of Section 48 (2) of the German Constitution, the following is
    decreed as a defensive measure against Communist acts of Violence,
    endangering the state:

    Section 1

    Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of
    the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions
    on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion,
    including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right
    of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic,
    and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders
    for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also
    permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

    Section 2

    If in a state the measures necessary for the restoration of public
    security and order are not taken, the Reich Government may temporarily
    take over the powers of the highest state authority.

    Section 4

    Whoever provokes, or appeals for or incites to the disobedience of the
    orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities
    subject to then for the execution of this decree, or the orders given by
    the Reich Government according to Section 2, is punishable—insofar as
    the deed, is not covered by the decree with more severe punishment and
    with imprisonment of not less that one month, or with a fine from 150 up
    to 15,000 Reichsmarks.

    Whoever endangers human life by violating Section 1, is to be punished
    by sentence to a penitentiary, under mitigating circumstances with
    imprisonment of not less than six months and, when violation causes the
    death of a person, with death, under mitigating circumstances with a
    penitentiary sentence of not less that two years. In addition the
    sentence my include confiscation of property.

    Whoever provokes an inciter to or act contrary to public welfare is to
    be punished with a penitentiary sentence, under mitigating
    circumstances, with imprisonment of not less than three months.

    Section 5

    The crimes which under the Criminal Code are punishable with
    penitentiary for life are to be punished with death: i.e., in Sections
    81 (high treason), 229 (poisoning), 306 (arson), 311 (explosion), 312
    (floods), 315, paragraph 2 (damage to railroad properties, 324 (general
    poisoning).

    Insofar as a more severe punishment has not been previously provided
    for, the following are punishable with death or with life imprisonment
    or with imprisonment not to exceed 15 years:

    1. Anyone who undertakes to kill the Reich President or a member or a
    commissioner of the Reich Government or of a state government, or
    provokes to such a killing, or agrees to commit it, or accepts such an
    offer, or conspires with another for such a murder;

    2. Anyone who under Section 115 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious
    rioting) or of Section 125 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious disturbance
    of the peace) commits the act with arms or cooperates consciously and
    intentionally with an armed person;

    3. Anyone who commits a kidnapping under Section 239 of the Criminal
    with the intention of making use of the kidnapped person as a hostage in
    the political struggle.

    Section 6

    This decree enters in force on the day of its promulgation.

    Reich President

    Reich Chancellor

    Reich Minister of the Interior

    Reich Minister of Justice