Protest at Rep. Duncan Hunter’s Office Over NDAA
A varied group of 25 people protests outside Rep. Hunter’s office Friday.
Photos
Protesters picketed outside Rep. Duncan Hunter’s office in El Cajon on Friday, calling for members of Congress to repeal the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2012 or resign.
The NDAA is the law authorizing the military budget each year. Both liberals and conservatives have attacked the version for this year’s budget, which contains elements about arresting and detaining terrorism suspects. Opponents fear that the military now has the authority to arrest American citizens within the United States and that arrestees can be detained indefinitely without due process.
There were approximately 30 people there, including five who went to support Hunter, according to Ramona Forum President Dave Patterson. Protesters included people from the Occupy Movement, Tea Party, Ramona Forum—a liberal progressive group—and a group called Kill the NDAA, he said. Among them were Terri Linnell (Republican), David Secor (Democrat) and Michael Benoit, (Libertarian), all running for Hunter's seat. Several people spoke, including Eric Andersen (Republican) from La Mesa, Patterson said.
Hunter, speaking in Ramona on Monday, said the concerns about the NDAA are unfounded.
“You can’t trump the Constitution,” he said of the legislation, while speaking to the Intermountain Republican Women Federated.
Hunter was on the conference committee that reviewed the House and Senate bills that laid the foundation for the NDAA. President Barack Obama signed the final bill (HR1540) into law on Dec. 31, 2011. To see a full copy of the law and to read a statement about it issued by Hunter, click here.
The conference committee included 29 House members and 26 senators, according to Hunter aide Joe Kasper in Washington. Kasper told Patch that the detainee provisions originated in the Senate and were “ironed out” in the conference committee. He said the NDAA puts into law procedures that were already being used.
“When something isn’t codified, there can be broad interpretations,” he said. “Putting it into law strengthens it and makes it consistent. There’s 100 percent clarity on the detainee process now. Congress can go back and address any changes that might need to be made down the line. This is commonly done.”
Kasper said there’s nothing in the NDAA to say the U.S. military can arrest citizens within US borders.
“Nothing can be construed as that,” he said.
He said the claims from opponents are “over the top.”
“We’re in campaign season, so this protest should be seen in that light,” Kasper said.
“Precedent has been set that shows that a U.S. citizen overseas who is captured as a collaborator still is entitled to due process,” he said.
Kasper said Hunter “feels very strongly about this stuff.”
“If (the NDAA) had given military domestic authority to arrest, he wouldn’t have voted for it. We always have to be very careful about extending federal powers.”
Hunter served in the Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Alice Wolf
2:30 pm on Saturday, February 4, 2012
Congressman Hunter isn't on board to have Barack Obama impeached for all the violations her has perpetrated against the US Constitution. He is totally for the oligarchs and their genocidal agenda, which is being played out through the bailouts and the support of Wall Street, and the lack of reinstatement of the Glass Steagall standard.
He claims to respect the Constituion yet allows the unconstitutional acting president to continue in office, he has not drawn up articles of impeachment. He is in a position to do so and could stand up for the people in this country who are watching Congress get run over by the Obama bus. It's pitiful. Why did he bother joining the forces to protect this country and then stand by and see it being lured into thermonuclear World War Three on account of the failure of the oligarchical monetary system. I am so upset about this.
Doug Curlee
4:21 pm on Saturday, February 4, 2012
alice.. the actual fact is that the poitical paralysis in this country right now is due to that congress...
obama shares some of the blame, sure.. but the vast majority of the trouble we have now is a do-nothing house of repsentatives that can do nothing but say "no" to anything obama wants to achieve..if anyone needs to be impeached, it's a large number of them..
perhaps after november, when he is re-elected, you'll see your way cleart to call him what the majoriuty of american do call him..
the president of the united states.
doug
Things I Learned
6:51 pm on Saturday, February 4, 2012
The solution to America's ills is for a co-equal branch of government, half of which is still controlled by Democrats and all of which is directly elected unlike President Obama, to acquiesce in his schemes rather than serving to check and balance them.
Tom Yarnall
9:39 pm on Saturday, February 4, 2012
Ease up! The Patriots by 3.
Doug Curlee
9:29 am on Sunday, February 5, 2012
things..the only problem with that is that there are no balances now.. only checks..
one house refuses to legislate..refuses to govern unless their demands are met at the expense of a solid percentage of american citizens..it's their way or the highway..
i'm pretty sure this is NOT what the founding fathers had in mind..nor did they have in mind political parties as we know them today..and i'm DAMNED sure they didn't have in mind that 60 votes out of a hundred is needed to pass legislation..that's a little afar of the the majority rules philosophy, wouldn't you say?
doug
Komfort
11:20 am on Sunday, February 5, 2012
"But he[Joe Biden] said "every single solitary decision has required 60 senators," which is an exaggeration. In 2009, for example, there were 397 roll call votes. According to the Senate Historian's office, only 39 of them were cloture votes. Indeed, we found plenty of major bills that did not require 60 votes to start or end debate, including a bill meant to give more children health insurance and a bill to prevent mortgage foreclosures. Furthermore, the Senate frequently passes noncontroversial bills unanimously, so there are countless pieces of legislation such as post office namings and resolutions that don't require 60 votes.
As we like to say at PolitiFact, words matter; if Biden had said every "major" decision requires 60 votes, he would have been on more solid ground. As a result, we rate his claim False."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/22/joe-biden/biden-says-every-senate-decision-now-requires-60-v/
Things I Learned
12:08 pm on Sunday, February 5, 2012
In our Constitutional framework the Senate's purpose is to protect majority rule which explains why Senate Democrats haven't used the nuclear AKA "constitutional" option to eliminate the filibuster with 51 votes.
Senate Democrats are so intimidated at the prospect of having to debate their fiscal ideas that Senate Republicans are able to unfairly use the mere threat of a filibuster to keep them from even proposing a budget since April 29, 2009 even though they found time to pass Obamacare which had the effect of reducing their majority below the number to prevent future filibusters like the one when Bernie Sanders (commie-VT) tried to prevent Barack Obama and the Republicans from compromising on taxes.
David B Secor
10:36 pm on Sunday, February 5, 2012
Do you support the language in question in the NDAA? Duncan Hunter does. If you do, too, then you condone violations of the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments to the Constitution.
Mr Hunter is supposed to be the Keeper of the Flame for this district, and in voting to allow any of his constituents, and potentialy himself, if found "suspicious," to be arrested and detained in violation of at least these three Amendments, is a violation of his oath to protect and defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign AND DOMESTIC.
Ron Paul on the Right and Bernie Sanders on the Left had no difficulty in seeing this. But Hunter, who wraps himself in God, the flag and Constitution when it suits him, not only voted for this language, he was ON THE COMMITTEE THAT REVIEWED THE BILLS. He "looked hard at this," and still saw no problems!
I know this district is Republican, but if you can vote for a man who would have no problem with YOU being "disappeared" for activity considered "suspicious" by "someone," then you need to stop demanding your Constitutional protections on other issues, because, with eyes wide open, you voted FOR THE VERY PERSON WHO WOULD DENY THEM TO YOU.
You do not have to join the forces of evil and vote Dem. There are Libertarian and Tea Party candidates for this office, both of whom were at the NDAA protest, and would demand your rights be protected. Vote for them, but not for Hunter, who "looks hard," but can't see.
(You may now change the subject to Obama)
Komfort
7:41 am on Monday, February 6, 2012
What does Obama have to do with this?
Things I Learned
8:02 am on Monday, February 6, 2012
Aside from signing the NDAA that Representative Susan Davis (forces of evil--CA) voted for despite both taking the same oath as Duncan Hunter (fine young man--America), nothing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVYezww7AEs&feature=related
Komfort
10:07 am on Monday, February 6, 2012
Wait. What?! Then why isn't David upset with them?
I don't know if I could vote for a partisan candidate to replace a partisan candidate.