Anonymous ID: 6d974c Sept. 1, 2022, 8:49 a.m. No.17476859   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6874

>>17476808

 

I keep forgetting about that. That Strozk worked on Russia shit for the CIA back in the day & Movies & TV have really blinded people(me for sure) to the fact that they are interchangeable, to the American peoples detriment.

Anonymous ID: 6d974c Sept. 1, 2022, 9:10 a.m. No.17476959   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7026

>>17476883

>>CNN

the Act means that most United States taxpayers do not know how the VOA (and its successor agencies) operate or what their programming content was, as was noted in 1967 by the Stanton Commission report noted above. The act insulates the American public from being targeted by the government-sponsored information and broadcasting which is directed at audiences beyond America's borders.

Anonymous ID: 6d974c Sept. 1, 2022, 9:24 a.m. No.17477009   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7020

The monthly magazine The Atlantic echoed those concerns by pointing out to two USA Today journalists who became target of a smear and propaganda campaign after they reported that the U.S. military "information operations" program spent millions of U.S. dollars in marketing campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq criticized as ineffective and poorly monitored.[36][42] As it turned out, Camille Chidiac, who executed the marketing campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, admitted to be a part of the smear and propaganda campaign against the USA Today reporters

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2013#Smith%E2%80%93Mundt_Modernization_Act_of_2012

Anonymous ID: 6d974c Sept. 1, 2022, 9:26 a.m. No.17477020   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7051

>>17477009

So as to not have the Act run into the same legal trouble as the 2012 version did, the United States House of Representatives included section 1029, which affirmed the right of habeas corpus and the Constitutional right of due process for American citizens.[1] However, there were criticisms of the Act, especially with regard to a "readiness" and funding for an attack on Iran.[3] Criticism had also been voiced regarding section 1033 of the House bill version which would state that nothing in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) shall be construed to deny the availability of the writ of habeas corpus in a court ordained or established by or under Article III of the Constitution for any person who is detained in the United States pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40).[3][4]

Anonymous ID: 6d974c Sept. 1, 2022, 9:31 a.m. No.17477051   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>17477020

 

but since there are no rules in place to exercise this right, detained U.S. citizens currently have no way to gain access to lawyers, family or the court itself once they are detained within the military. Afran added that the new statute actually states that persons lawfully in the U.S. can be detained under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force [AUMF], while the original statute from the 2012 NDAA which he is fighting never went that far. Afran concluded: "Therefore, under the guise of supposedly adding protection to Americans, the new statute actually expands the AUMF to civilians in the U.S."