‘Time to Fight’ – Montana Voters Move To Recall Senators Who Voted For NDAA

Gen. Smedley Butler

Gen. Smedley Butler

Jonathan Turley writes:

We have been discussing the disconnect between citizens who have repeatedly opposed continued rollbacks of civil liberties and the Democratic and Republican leadership pushing for such rollbacks, including the recent provision allowing indefinite detention of citizens under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA). Now Montana citizens have decided to try another approach given the non-responsive attitude of our leaders — they are moving to remove their two Senators from office over their votes in favor of indefinite detention powers.

Montana is one of nine states with recall laws. The other states are Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, and Wisconsin. Eighteen states have recall laws, but most do not apply to federal officers.

Montana Code 2-16-603, on the grounds of physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of certain felony offenses.

Presumably, they are arguing that voting for an unconstitutional measure that allows for indefinite detention of citizens constitutes both a violation of the oath of office and incompetence…

Source: Daily Kos

[continues at Jonathan Turley‘s blog]

In the Daily Kos post, Stewart Rhodes, one of the leaders of the movement, is quoted as saying:

Two time Medal of Honor winner Marine General Smedley Butler once said “There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights.” Time to fight.

, , ,

  • DeepCough

    Since John McCain helped sponsor this bill, he should be recalled immediately just for being a fascist twat.

  • DeepCough

    Since John McCain helped sponsor this bill, he should be recalled immediately just for being a fascist twat.

    • Jin The Ninja

      or just a scumbag generally.

  • Jin (仁)

    or just a scumbag generally.

  • http://buzzcoastin.posterous.com BuzzCoastin

    i would like to think that is more than just noise
    but historically
    the 1% rarely take a beating for violating the constitution
    usually they have to be caught in airport men’s rooms foundling young boys
    before anybody does anything about it

    maybe if the constitution was a child
    america would get worked-up about governmental rape

  • BuzzCoastin

    i would like to think that this is more than just noise
    but historically
    the 1% rarely take a beating for violating the constitution
    usually they have to be caught in airport men’s rooms foundling young boys
    before anybody does anything about it

    maybe if the constitution was a child
    america would get worked-up about governmental rape

    • Dan

      “If the constitution was a childAmerica would get worked-up about governmental rape”

      Just so you know, I will be making this into a bumper sticker.

      • D.D.B.

        If the Constitution was a college football game, America might pay attention!

  • Rwolf

    Re: Multi-State Recall Petitions of
    Congressman that voted for (NDAA)

    The National Defense Authorization ACT of 2012

     

    Some
    observers believe NDAA included the vague term “Belligerent” in the manner it
    did, so U.S. Government would have authority granted by Congress to Indefinitely
    Detain large numbers of Americans not involved in terrorism. Under NDAA, U.S. Government can deem anyone a
    “Belligerent” for indefinite detention. The term “Belligerent” is so Expansive and Vague an
    American Citizen could be labeled a “Belligerent” for exercising First
    Amendment Rights—speaking out for or against any issue; protesting a U.S.
    Government Policy; agency or coalition Partner. It is foreseeable U.S. Government will threaten Americans with
    Indefinite Detention that refuse to act as informants.

    The passed
    (Defense Authorization Act of 2012) appears more threatening to Americans than
    (Hitler’s FASCIST 1933
    Discriminatory LAWS) that suspended provisions in the Reich Constitution that
    Protected German Citizens’ Civil Liberties? For example—Note below that
    Hitler’s 1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS (stated time limits) German Citizens could be
    incarcerated for e.g., Serious Disturbance of the Peace, Provoking Public
    Unrest, Rioting; Acts that threatened National Security. In contrast Senators
    John McCain and Carl Levin’s National Defense Authorization Act of
    2012—mandates holding Americans’ (Indefinitely) in Military Custody for being a
    mere “Belligerent.”

    Under the
    passed National Defense Authorization, could some Americans be (Retroactively) subject to
    Indefinite U.S. Military or Prison Detention without charges or right to an attorney or trial? Consider
    that most American activists don’t know what other activists and groups they
    networked or associated did in the past—perhaps illegal. Both the National
    Authorization Act of 2012 and USA Patriot Act are expansive and vague—what constitutes (1) a terrorist act, (2) supporting
    or aiding terrorists; (3) when someone is a “Combatant” or (4) “a Belligerent.”
    For example, Americans advocating, attending or supporting a meeting or protest
    demonstration against a U.S. Government Agency; Policy or U.S. Military
    Action—could be charged with (1) (2) (3) and (4) under NDAA and the Patriot
    Act.

    History
    Repeats Itself: When other
    countries passed Police State Laws like The Defense Authorization Act of 2012,
    Citizens increasingly abstained from politically speaking out; visiting
    activist websites or writing comments that might be deemed inappropriate by the
    Police State Government, e.g. cause someone to lose their job; be investigated;
    disappeared, and or detained in Police/Military Custody. Some writers might be
    dead-meat under NDAA. It appears
    that “Americans” who write on the Internet or verbally express an opinion
    against any entity of U.S. Government or its coalition partners—may under the Patriot Act or The Defense Authorization
    Act—be deemed by U.S. Government (someone likely to engage in, support or provoke
    violent acts or threaten National Security—to order an American writer’s indefinite military or
    prison detention.

    Is NDAA Retroactive? Can U.S. Government invoke
    provisions of NDAA or the Patriot Act to assert a U.S. Citizen’s past or current writings (protected by the 1st Amendment) have
    supported or aided terrorists; provoked combatants or belligerents as a premise
    to order an author’s Indefinite Detention? The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 did more than Chill Free Speech—it
    may FREEZE IT!

    It should be
    expected that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved
    in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings when
    interrogated or allowed legal counsel; will also be prosecuted for
    non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite
    Detention. See below: Hitler’s 1933 Fascist Laws that might appear mild in
    several respects when set side by side with the National Authorization Act of
    2012.

    1933. ROBL. I 83.  

    GERMANY Preliminary Compilation of
    Selected Laws, Decrees, and Regulations:  

    DISCRIMINATORY LAWS:

     

    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
    Reich marks.

     

    Who ever 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

  • Rwolf

    Re: Multi-State Recall Petitions of
    Congressman that voted for (NDAA)

    The National Defense Authorization ACT of 2012

     

    Some
    observers believe NDAA included the vague term “Belligerent” in the manner it
    did, so U.S. Government would have authority granted by Congress to Indefinitely
    Detain large numbers of Americans not involved in terrorism. Under NDAA, U.S. Government can deem anyone a
    “Belligerent” for indefinite detention. The term “Belligerent” is so Expansive and Vague an
    American Citizen could be labeled a “Belligerent” for exercising First
    Amendment Rights—speaking out for or against any issue; protesting a U.S.
    Government Policy; agency or coalition Partner. It is foreseeable U.S. Government will threaten Americans with
    Indefinite Detention that refuse to act as informants.

    The passed
    (Defense Authorization Act of 2012) appears more threatening to Americans than
    (Hitler’s FASCIST 1933
    Discriminatory LAWS) that suspended provisions in the Reich Constitution that
    Protected German Citizens’ Civil Liberties? For example—Note below that
    Hitler’s 1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS (stated time limits) German Citizens could be
    incarcerated for e.g., Serious Disturbance of the Peace, Provoking Public
    Unrest, Rioting; Acts that threatened National Security. In contrast Senators
    John McCain and Carl Levin’s National Defense Authorization Act of
    2012—mandates holding Americans’ (Indefinitely) in Military Custody for being a
    mere “Belligerent.”

    Under the
    passed National Defense Authorization, could some Americans be (Retroactively) subject to
    Indefinite U.S. Military or Prison Detention without charges or right to an attorney or trial? Consider
    that most American activists don’t know what other activists and groups they
    networked or associated did in the past—perhaps illegal. Both the National
    Authorization Act of 2012 and USA Patriot Act are expansive and vague—what constitutes (1) a terrorist act, (2) supporting
    or aiding terrorists; (3) when someone is a “Combatant” or (4) “a Belligerent.”
    For example, Americans advocating, attending or supporting a meeting or protest
    demonstration against a U.S. Government Agency; Policy or U.S. Military
    Action—could be charged with (1) (2) (3) and (4) under NDAA and the Patriot
    Act.

    History
    Repeats Itself: When other
    countries passed Police State Laws like The Defense Authorization Act of 2012,
    Citizens increasingly abstained from politically speaking out; visiting
    activist websites or writing comments that might be deemed inappropriate by the
    Police State Government, e.g. cause someone to lose their job; be investigated;
    disappeared, and or detained in Police/Military Custody. Some writers might be
    dead-meat under NDAA. It appears
    that “Americans” who write on the Internet or verbally express an opinion
    against any entity of U.S. Government or its coalition partners—may under the Patriot Act or The Defense Authorization
    Act—be deemed by U.S. Government (someone likely to engage in, support or provoke
    violent acts or threaten National Security—to order an American writer’s indefinite military or
    prison detention.

    Is NDAA Retroactive? Can U.S. Government invoke
    provisions of NDAA or the Patriot Act to assert a U.S. Citizen’s past or current writings (protected by the 1st Amendment) have
    supported or aided terrorists; provoked combatants or belligerents as a premise
    to order an author’s Indefinite Detention? The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 did more than Chill Free Speech—it
    may FREEZE IT!

    It should be
    expected that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved
    in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings when
    interrogated or allowed legal counsel; will also be prosecuted for
    non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite
    Detention. See below: Hitler’s 1933 Fascist Laws that might appear mild in
    several respects when set side by side with the National Authorization Act of
    2012.

    1933. ROBL. I 83.  

    GERMANY Preliminary Compilation of
    Selected Laws, Decrees, and Regulations:  

    DISCRIMINATORY LAWS:

     

    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
    Reich marks.

     

    Who ever 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

  • Spedrick Henster

    Not surprised that Oregon is one of the few states with recall laws. Too bad both our senators already voted against NDAA…

  • Spedrick Henster

    Not surprised that Oregon is one of the few states with recall laws. Too bad both our senators already voted against NDAA…

  • JOE

    Obama did political suicide when he passed the NDAA bill . Sort of like when President Hoover used the military to remove protesting war veterans outside Washington. Americans quickly despised him after that. Sort of ironic that a black president would be the first one to essentially remove the bill of rights from citizens(the foundation of the civil rights movement.) I wonder what MLK would think of him?

    • 337626

      The NDAA bill had the detainment part added by the rebulican party and if the bill was not signed, the army would not get paid.
      This is one example of how things get passed by piggybagging horrible things on good and necesary bills.

      • http://twitter.com/JNavarr0 Jose Nav

        Please stop providing misinformation. It is actually Obamas administration that added the detention in the bill. Here is video of the senator testifying http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_ysdsxF3eo

      • Realinfo

        OBAMA is the one who wanted that added in! There is no Democrat and Republican anymore, just establishment whores and Ron Paul. 

        Don’t pick the wrong one!

      • pete99

        I wish that was true, but the Obama administration demanded that the detainment clause be at the discretion of the president.

    • shelley griffiths

      I voted for Obama….I am a true Democrat……He [Obama] has lost my support. I will not vote to re-elect him. I may not vote at all. The Republicans are worse, so…………?

      • Realinfo

        Stop thinking Democrat vs Republican, Left Vs Right, etc…. There is only US vs THEM! WE ARE FIGHTING FOR OUR COUNTRY!!!  The enemy is in Washington taking the country over from the inside! Any candidate the establishment attacks is the one you want to vote for. AKA: Ron Paul. 

  • http://twitter.com/JNavarr0 Jose Nav

    Obama did political suicide when he passed the NDAA. Sort of like when President Hoover used the military to remove protesting war veterans. Americans quickly despised him after that. Sort of ironic that a black president would be the first one to essentially remove the bill of rights from citizens(the foundation of the civil rights movement.)

  • 337626

    The NDAA bill had the detainment part added by the rebulican party and if the bill was not signed, the army would not get paid.
    This is one example of how things get passed by piggybagging horrible things on good and necesary bills.

  • http://twitter.com/JNavarr0 Jose Nav

    Please stop providing misinformation. It is actually Obamas administration that added the detention in the bill. Here is video of the senator testifying http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_ysdsxF3eo

  • shelley griffiths

    I voted for Obama….I am a true Democrat……He [Obama] has lost my support. I will not vote to re-elect him. I may not vote at all. The Republicans are worse, so…………?

  • Dan

    “If the constitution was a childAmerica would get worked-up about governmental rape”

    Just so you know, I will be making this into a bumper sticker.

  • Realinfo

    OBAMA is the one who wanted that added in! There is no Democrat and Republican anymore, just establishment whores and Ron Paul. 

    Don’t pick the wrong one!

  • Realinfo

    Stop thinking Democrat vs Republican, Left Vs Right, etc…. There is only US vs THEM! WE ARE FIGHTING FOR OUR COUNTRY!!!  The enemy is in Washington taking the country over from the inside! Any candidate the establishment attacks is the one you want to vote for. AKA: Ron Paul. 

  • chris

    hope the other 8 states that can recall, will. Someone has to lead so the rest of the nation can follow.

  • chris

    hope the other 8 states that can recall, will. Someone has to lead so the rest of the nation can follow.

  • D.D.B.

    If the Constitution was a college football game, America might pay attention!

  • pete99

    I wish that was true, but the Obama administration demanded that the detainment clause be at the discretion of the president.

  • Iamazarine

    I am not a citizen of the US so maybe some of you will say, “keep your opinions to yourself”, but it just seems that you are all being sold down the river. It is positively Orwellian what is happening in your country. The US (possibly slightly naively) 
    used to be known for freedom of speech, open government and citizens rights, frankly that is just laughable now. The only positive thing I can see is that it brings the point where people snap, closer.  

  • Iamazarine

    I am not a citizen of the US so maybe some of you will say, “keep your opinions to yourself”, but it just seems that you are all being sold down the river. It is positively Orwellian what is happening in your country. The US (possibly slightly naively) 
    used to be known for freedom of speech, open government and citizens rights, frankly that is just laughable now. The only positive thing I can see is that it brings the point where people snap, closer.  

21