Surefire lobbied for NDAA, recieved $23 million DoD contract

[bigj480]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/19/1046972/-Anonymous:-Night-Raid-Equipment-Maker-Lobbied-for-NDAA,-Singles-Out-Sen-Rob-Portman

"Military Contractors Funded Detention Bill"
Big surprise there....and it will get signed....

I rarely boycott anything, I will make an exception for this. I will not support people ACTIVELY seeking to infringe on my rights as a person.

[LAGC]

Two 4-star Marine generals demand that President Obama veto the National Defense Authorization:

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Hoar_Krulak_letter_to_Obama_re_NDAA.pdf

[arcangel]

I'd like to see some active duty Generals and his men get on board this and defend the constitution and our rights from the politicians. But who knows that could lead to civil war maybe. But it would be a good cause. I am happy to hear officers standing up for our rights. By the way fuck surefire and whichever companies that get on board with this bill.

[5.56NATO]

I doubt if they could say much about the cic per ucmj, but they could arrest him for treason along with the rest of the domestic enemies.

[Altarboy]

Sadly, I've bought so many of their flashlights over the years. They were my Christmas present of choice for a while, Every man in my family has one or more. No longer will they get my money.

[Dr. Gonzo GED]

WTF? They would have been my go-to once I was ready to plunck down cash on a well made flashlight.

Not any more. They can go rot in a secret detention center for all I care.

[sevlex]

Time for an email campaign.

[Penguin]

That is very disapointing. I have a sure fire and love the thing. I have often thought about getting another one. I have also been known to buy them as gifts for others. I doubt I will buy another one again. That is just the pits.

[Ronwicp]

The geeks at Anonymous probably think they are having more fun publishing the Twitter handles of the 83 senators who approved the NDAA, National Defense Authorization Act, last Thursday, on Bill of Rights Day, which okays indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial.


Will someone please show me where the bill says that is ok?

[btcave]

Will someone please show me where the bill says that is ok?

It don't. Now if they make a correlation between you as a US citizen and the Al-Qaeda organization, it might....maybe.

[5.56NATO]

"The Senate-passed version of the NDAA, S. 1867, contains Section 1031, which authorizes indefinite military detention of suspected terrorists without protecting U.S. citizens’ right to trial. We are deeply concerned that this provision could undermine the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth amendment rights of U.S. citizens who might be subjects of detention or prosecution by the military."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10190-lawmakers-submit-letter-opposing-ndaas-indefinite-detention-provisions

Potus and mil can decide who is enemy and who isn't. So if they just feel like it they can murder or detain you and your fam. Therein lies the danger.

[Ronwicp]

The senate passed a version, then the house. And the final result is found if you search for HR 1540. It is section 1022 that you will be looking for.


SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1021 who is determined--

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1028.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The President may waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

(c) Implementation Procedures-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:

(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.

(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.

(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing interrogation.

(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other Government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.

(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.

(d) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.

(e) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.




Now if there is something out there that I am not seeing, there is nothing in here that applies to US citizens. They cant arrest you, detain you, hold you forever without out trial or any of that.

If anyone has anything else that I am missing please do point it out.

[5.56NATO]

"(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States."

There's the key word: requirement, meaning they don't have to detain American citizens, but can under their discretion. And please keep in mind the part where cic and mil can decide for themselves who to place in the FEMA Archipelago.

Notice also that they're hiding or editing section 1031.
This will go into effect 60 days after signing by pres.

Note here how 0bama sidesteps any mention of the power to detain, murder, or whatever else they think they can do to us:
http://www.chocolatecity.cc/2011/12/23/obama-signs-national-defense-authorization-act-and-clarifies-misinformation-campaign/

[Partisan1983]

Guys......

http://soldiersystems.net/2011/12/24/surefire-responds-to-ndaa-rumors/

[deth502]

Guys......

http://soldiersystems.net/2011/12/24/surefire-responds-to-ndaa-rumors/

saw that a few days ago, and, right from the horses mouth:


SureFire’s support of unrelated parts of the NDAA does not constitute support for every part of the bill like those that are now being contested.

so, they did support the bill. the "rumors" are true. period. lobbyists do not have the "line item veto" ability, ether you support it or you dont, and they made it clear which side theyre on.