Exclusive: Albany New York’s City Council Attempting To Block NDAA

By: Ben Swann
9
NDAA

Attempts to block or end indefinite detention of U.S. citizens simply suspected of association with terrorism, has come to Albany, New York. For well over a year I have reported on the enormous Constitutional problems with the National Defense Authorization Act’s Section 1021. That section of the bill, which funds military operations, allows for the indefinite detention of any American simply accused of terrorism until the end of the “hostilities between the United States and Al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces.”


Despite the lack of political will by the U.S. Congress to intervene and declare this provision of the NDAA as unconstitutional, there is a new battlefront for those who oppose indefinite detention… the local level.

Albany, New York has just become the center of that fight. One week ago, Ward 11 Common Councilman Anton Konev introduced a resolution “OPPOSING THE INDEFINITE MILITARY DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL OF ANY PERSON, INCLUDING US CITIZENS”

I talked with Konev who says that under this resolution, Albany’s local law enforcement would be banned from assisting federal authorities in enforcing military detention of U.S. and non-U.S. citizens.

“Here in Albany we believe in protecting civil liberties and rights of our residents. The resolution specifically opposes indefinite military detention without trial of any person who is a resident of the city of Albany or is simply visiting the city of Albany.” says Konev.

The resolution has seven co-sponsors and only needs an eighth in order to be passed and become law in the capital of New York. The language would make it the toughest local NDAA ordinance in the nation. The resolution in part reads:

“Instruct all our public agencies to decline requests by federal agencies acting under detention powers granted by the NDAA, or similar law or authority that could infringe upon residents’ freedom of speech, religion, assembly, privacy, or rights to counsel;

Expect all federal and state law enforcement officials acting within the City to work in accordance with local law, and in cooperation with the Albany Police Department, by allowing any detainees not serving “in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger” among Albany’s residents or visitors access to a trial, counsel and due process, including under Article III, the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States;”

The due process clause, Councilman Konev says, is what this resolution is all about. He believes that in order to protect the Constitutional rights of the people of Albany, council must be willing to take stand.

“As somebody with a Russian background who was born in the Soviet Union, I know that there is such a thing as “no rights” and I am proud to be an American citizen and proud to be an elected official in the the capital of the state of New York. This is about protecting our residents.”

PANDA

Konev, who has been working with Dan Johnson and the organization PANDA, says that he is encouraged by the number of council members who currently support the resolution. In fact, he expects an eighth member of council will sign on by the time the issue comes up for a vote on October 7, 2013. On October 2nd council will take up this resolution for discussion.

“I believe we have three members who are very close to signing on and I believe that we have only four members who are leaning toward voting against this resolution. Unfortunately, we have some people on council who have bought into the propaganda that the NDAA is constitutional and a right of government to be able to detain somebody somewhere under some special powers and they say that the NDAA is constitutional. But here in the city of Albany it is clear that we must protect these rights.”

You can learn more about this fight over the NDAA at www.takebackalbany.com


  • j_robinson

    Great news! If more cities & counties refused to aid and abet the US Government in its criminal acts, then eventually the US Government would be forced to lock up the entirety of the US population, or change from their insane and self destructive course.

  • commonsense

    #libertyisrising and it seem to be growing

  • vongoh

    I live in the Capital District and I totally support this – in fact, I might show up at that meeting

    • Patriot from the nanny state

      When is this mtg.I too live in albany remember monsanto rally oct 12

  • People Against NDAA

    Thank you, Ben Swann, for covering this.

    If there was ever a time for the people to unite, it is now. Help us stop the NDAA in Albany first, and then across the country:

    http://www.takebackalbany.com

  • Kevin Merck

    Everyone in this rotten government, which now openly funds Al-CIA-DA should be arrested and imprisoned under the provisions of this act, then, and only then, would it be justifiable.
    But, to use this act to deprive law abiding citizens of their rights as a means of political oppression is unconscionable.
    We need to arrest and try everyone who voted for this act with treason.

  • Mark Langenkamp

    May 24th, 2011 – Tyranny’s Timeline – July 17th, 2013

    This timeline illustrates how, in just over two years, this Administration and this same Congress–that in January of 2011 made a show of reading the Constitution aloud–has wrestled from the American people the authority to violate our 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th amendment rights as guaranteed by that Constitution.

    May 24th, 2011: Obama threatens to Veto the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) if it still contains the indefinite detention (ID) clause–allowing for the otherwise unlawful and certainly unconstitutional indefinite detention of US citizens without charges and without representation–if and when it comes across his desk.

    May 26th, 2011: NDAA passes the House by a vote of 322-96.

    December 12th, 2011: Senator Levin (co-author of the bill with McCain) explains that the Obama Administration demanded the removal from the bill of phrasing specifically protecting U.S. citizens against ID–in other words, Obama asked for the authority to ID U.S. citizens.

    December 14th, 2011: NDAA again passes the House by a vote of 283-136.

    December 16th, 2011: NDAA passes the Senate by a vote of 86 to 13.

    December 31st, 2011 (New Year’s Eve): Obama signs NDAA into law “with reservations” about ID.

    January 5th, 2012: Obama assures that HIS administration will not use the ID
    clause against American citizens.

    January, 16th, 2012: Mitt Romney, when asked during a Republican Candidate debate if he would have signed NDAA, states that he would have signed the bill–explaining that Government needs the ability to combat treason (apparently forgetting that laws already exist to combat treason as well as to provide ways to combat terrorism without violating the civil liberties that American’s enjoy).

    February 29th, 2012: A group of Constitutional activists sues the government over the ID clause of NDAA (Section 1021).

    May 16th, 2012: U.S. District Judge, Katherine Forrest, rules that Section 1021 of NDAA is unconstitutional–thereby blocking its potential use upon any U.S. citizen.

    June 6th, 2012: Judge Forrest, answering the White House’s request (which escaped the media’s attention) for a “more careful explanation,” submits a 68 page memo explaining that while U.S. citizens may be subject to Section 1021, ID may only apply to citizens proven to be directly linked to the events of September 11th, 2001 (“9/11”).

    August 6th, 2012: Obama’s lawyers filed an appeal challenging the judge’s injunction–another event which escaped the media’s attention.

    August 9th, 2012: Activist and plaintiff in the case against the NDAA, Tangerine
    Bolen, requests to know if our Government has already used ID against a U.S. citizen. Obama’s attorneys refuse to answer the inquiry to which Judge Forrest
    states that if the provision had indeed been applied, the United States government would be in contempt of court.

    September 12th, 2012: Judge Forrest issues permanent injunction against ID–again rejecting “the Government’s suggestion that American citizens can be
    placed in military detention indefinitely, for acts they could not predict might subject them to detention.”

    September 15th, 2012: The Obama Administration contends that the court’s permanent injunction against ID is unconstitutional and files for appeal.

    September 18th, 2012: Judge Raymond Lohier of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issues a temporary stay blocking Judge Forrest’s injunction pending appellate review later this same month.

    October 2nd, 2012: A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (including Judge Lohier) issues an extension of the stay blocking Judge Forrest’s injunction.

    July 17th, 2013: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated Judge Forrest’s permanent injunction. In their decision, the claim is made that all of “the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek preenforcement review of Section 1021” of NDAA 2012. This means that the court has decided that only victims of Indefinite Detention can argue the constitutionality of the law–in spite of the fact that such victims will be bound by the law to refrain from discussing the status of their victimhood.

    “You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of
    ignoring reality”
    ~Ayn Rand

  • Tammy Smithfix

    Texas Team Leader for PANDA (People Against NDAA) speaks his mind.
    .http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfoWMzkID3Q&list=TLi4XxS4Cl12dVnPWynWtNsNyWJZwlFIkR

  • slamradio

    this is great news! i support it fully, but i have to say that i have my doubts about it’s enforcement… If the fed gov wants to come take someone, the ndaa grants them the authority to lie, to do it in secret, to deny all contact from the victim. When this law passes in ny, the fed gov won’t send troops with a signed ndaa post card, they’ll send the fbi, the police will help, and the fbi will turn you over to the military where you will be sent to your secret dungeon for as long as they want you. but hey, it’s a start. what would really tell me Albany is serious is for them to resolve to deny all assistance to any federal agency for any federal request for anything, for as long as the ndaa is on the books. even if it’s just an agent asking for directions to the mall, “sorry sir, we cannot help with you that”. that’s how you really say “we’re not gonna take it”