Thursday, January 5, 2012

Can the NDAA be Legally Challenged Under Treaty Law?

                This may sound like a long shot legal strategy to defeat this tyrannical law called the National Defense Authorization Act. We not have only the US Constitution to call out this illegality of arresting American Citizens using the Military. We do also have treaty law too we can use to counter this abuse of power. I know throughout history, the US Government violated treaties with the native American Indians. They violate treaties everyday. They broke the law of the land with inhumane treatment at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib with torture and holding prisoners without cause.

               When the US Senate so arrogantly declared the world and American soil a battlefield now where the US Military has the jurisdiction to arrest American citizens on US soil without cause. They are breaking treaty law. All treaties are law of the land under the US Constitution not withstanding. The NDAA might be breaking the Geneva and Hague convention treaties. These treaties were ratified by the US Senate making them the law of the land. Under the rules of war, they cannot torture people and have to allow access by international observers to check on the treatment of prisoners.

                Under these treaties. It not only protects uniformed military, it protects militias and civilians do fall under the jurisdiction of these treaties under the rules of war. It does allow for diplomatic emissaries to be represented in foreign nations. The Military must allow safe passage for any Militia or a state dignitaries that seeks to secede for the union cannot be detained. They cannot designate them as enemy combatants under these treaties. journalist are protected too. This NDAA should not only be challenged under the procedural anomalies to get this provision added to a appropriations bill. It should be challenged on the grounds of violating the Bill of rights as always. We must use every legal angle possible. That is even using treaty law to stop this abomination from being implemented.

               To the Commissioned officers and NCOs, you are not only obligated to uphold your oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. You are also legally bound to treaty law too. The provisions in the NDAA must be challenged at every legal angle using any peaceful means possible. We have the law on our side. Just because congress and the President are willing to violate the law of the land. It does not mean you have to. Just because it is legal, does not make it lawful and moral to carry it out. Honor the Constitution and the Treaties that govern the rules of war.



  1. Wow! Good one, Lone Star! I never even considered the Geneva Convention.

  2. Its all common law, if they try to step all over you, shoot the bastards! No-one, and NO ENTITY has the right to forceable get you to do ANYTHING.

    "Just following orders" is NO EXCUSE for anyone.

    No piece of paper, or code, or entity will save you from these pricks. Only your gun, and those of your friends and neighbours.

    Get used to the idea of making your neighbourhood a fortress where everyone sticks together. Thats what Hezbollah is. Its armed neighbourhood watch, to protect their families and friends.

    They might easily pick people of one by one, but won't go into an area knowing they have a high possibility of death.

    Imagine a million hezbollah style neighbourhoods in the USA.

  3. Ha, ha, this is pretty funny. You actually think that men with guns can be restrained by a piece of paper! And that one is obliged to abide by it because somebody else has had a vote! Which you had no say in! And that you have to keep on abiding by it unless and until someone gives you permission not to!


  4. While I admire your line of thinking, I feel this is what the powers that be actually want.

    "Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.”
    - Henry Kissinger in an address to the Bilderberger meeting at Evian, France, May 21, 1992.

    This could just be another step towards a one world government, whether or not NDAA is challenged in the creative way you have mentioned or not.

    The answer will come from within this country I suspect.

  5. Any piece of paper will not protect you in this dystopia, only your gun can stop the scums!

  6. Nanananananana New World Order!!!! 4 LIFE!!! SWEEEEEETTTTTT!~!!!!!

  7. Good Luck with this theory of using treaty law to overrule the NDAA unless you get France or similar to have a trial in the Hague I don't think "Nullification" will work...knowing this do you think that "TPTB" are pushing "We the People" toward armed revolt so that they can implement Martial Law???

    Virginia's opposition to Supreme Court review
    In 1813, the Supreme Court reversed a decision of the Virginia Court of Appeals, basing its decision on the terms of a federal treaty.[43] The Virginia Court of Appeals refused to accept the Supreme Court's decision, stating that under the Constitution, the Supreme Court did not have appellate authority over state courts, even in cases involving federal law. The Virginia court held that as a matter of state sovereignty, its decisions were final and could not be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Virginia court found unconstitutional the federal statute providing for Supreme Court review of state court judgments. This decision would have allowed each state's courts to decide for itself whether federal actions were unconstitutional, effectively giving state courts the right to nullify federal law. In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304 (1816), the Supreme Court overruled the Virginia court. The Supreme Court held that Article III of the Constitution gives the federal courts jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution or federal law, whether the case originates in state court or federal court, and gives the Supreme Court final appellate authority in such cases. The Supreme Court stated that the people, by providing in the Constitution that the Supreme Court has appellate authority in such cases, had chosen to limit the sovereignty of the states with respect to cases involving the Constitution or federal law. The Supreme Court thereby found that the federal courts, not the states, have the final power to interpret the Constitution.
    Virginia again challenged the Supreme Court's authority in Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821). The question was whether the Supreme Court had authority to hear an appeal in a criminal case brought by the state itself in a state court based on violation of a state law, where the defense was based on federal law. The Virginia legislature passed resolutions declaring that the Supreme Court had no authority to hear the appeal due to principles of state sovereignty.[44] The Supreme Court held that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts have jurisdiction over all cases involving the Constitution or federal law, including criminal prosecutions by the states in which a federal defense arises. Because the defendants in the case claimed that their actions were authorized by a federal statute, there was a disputed issue of federal law and the Supreme Court had authority to review the state court's judgment. Thus, the Supreme Court again found that the final power to interpret federal law lies in the federal courts, not the states.

  8. There is a maxim of law which says that, "In times of war, laws are silent."

    I suspect this is the reason the Geneva Conventions have done nothing for those detained in Gitmo. Similarly, they will do nothing for you.

    Also, as I understand things, one must have standing to bring an action or suit. The problem with international law is that only nations who are a party to those agreements have standing to bring suit under those treaties. Who will bring an action on behalf of aggrieved Americans? Iran, perhaps? Afghanistan or Iraq? Maybe our old friend Isreal will step in on behalf of America?