Ben Swann: Understanding the 2013 NDAA, Part 2 – Section 1029

Posted by clnews _Featured_, Politics, Videos Saturday, December 29th, 2012

Ben Swann takes a look at the 2013 NDAA and section 1029, also known as the Gohmert Amendment, which guarantees the right to trial in an Article III court. But is this section 1029 ineffective? Make sure you check out Part 1- the Feinstein/Lee Amendment.

Section 1029 of the NDAA was written by Texas congressman Louis Gohmert.  It is supposed to protect the rights of U.S. citizens if they are arrested and suspected of terrorism.

Here’s the text of Section 1029:

“Nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus or to deny any Constitutional rights in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution for any person who is lawfully in the United States when detained pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force who is otherwise entitled to the availability of such writ of such rights.” – Gohmert Amendment, now Section 1029, 2013 NDAA

According to Section 1029 of the NDAA, nothing in that law shall be construed to deny the right of habeas or the right to trail for American Citizens who might be arrested under the NDAA.  The problem is with the part pertaining to an Article III court:

“The Gohmert Amendment only says that if you get a trail in an Article II court that you won’t be denied your constitutional rights in that court, but there’s no guarantee that you get any trail, let alone one in an Article III court.  This language is deceptive in that it implies Congress can pick and choose who gets Constitutional Rights.  It also does not recognize or protect Constitutional Rights of U.S. citizens travelling abroad.” – Dan Johnson, PANDAA

So, the Gohmert Amendment does nothing protect your right to a trail in an Article III court:

“Anyone detained under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) as modified by the 2012 NDAA is subject to the laws of war… The 2009 Military Commissions Act gave Military commissions/tribunals the statutory authority to choose whether or not they had jurisdiction.  In laymen’s terms, that means a Military commission (an Article I court) can decide themselves whether or not they will take ‘jurisdiction’ over cases involving AUMF/NDAA ‘covered persons.’” – Dan Johnson, PANDAA

Section 1029 of the NDAA does nothing to protect your right to trail.  It doesn’t guarantee that if you were arrested on charges of terrorism that you’d ever get a trail.  You can still be indefinitely detained under this section. If you happen to get into an Article III court, according to this amendment, your rights would then be honored UNLESS “otherwise entitled.”  Those words are the key to all of this. What the executive branch has said is that you are not otherwise entitled.   According to the executive branch under President George W. Bush and under President Obama, if you are a suspected terrorist, you have no right to a trail because you are an enemy combatant.

That is full disclosure.