Bitronic Technologies Opposes the NDAA

Bitronic Technologies Opposes the NDAA Which Allegedly Allows the Indefinite Imprisonment of American Citizens Without a Trial

Bitronic Technologies Opposes the NDAA Which Allegedly Allows the Indefinite Imprisonment of American Citizens Without a Trial, says the company's founder Bryan Apperson

Said document grants to our government absolute and near dictatorial powers over American citizens primarily to silence dissent to corrupt leadership

US-terrorist-identification-chart 2012 US Terrorist Identification Chart

New York, NY, January 2012 : The vocal owner (Bryan Apperson) of Bitronic Technologies, a web design and hosting company voiced his companies stance on the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 on January 5, 2011.

Apperson was quoted as saying, "People in this country right now are - for the first time in most people's memory concerned on a mass scale about where their rent's going to come from; where their next meal is going to come from. They're not even worried about putting their kid through college or things that most people consider luxuries, but the people have expected here in this country."

And Apperson further stated: "Now people in America are worried about the things that people around the world have been worried about for a very long time, and so the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 seems somewhat esoteric to people, because there hasn't been much coverage in the commercial media here, and because they're preoccupied with their survival."

According to the article from The New York Times - After Struggle on Detainees, Obama Signs Defense Bill, President Obama has endorsed the NDAA of 2012.

Apperson Stated "President Barack Obama and all of the Republican Presidential candidates excluding Ron Paul voted in favor of this bill.

Subsection 1021 of the NDAA in combination with elements referenced in the AUMF Bill of 2001 cement the idea that the United States Government can detain anyone inclusive of U.S. Citizens, indefinitely." There’s been a ton of confusion over the bill and Obama even cited reservations with the language of the bill however according to Human Rights First, he signed the bill on New Years Eve while vacationing in Hawaii.

Further according to Fox News "In a scathing statement, the head of the ACLU, and other leading civil liberties and human rights groups who were among President Obama's most ardent campaign supporters said the President's decision to sign a sprawling defense bill including controversial detainee provisions would tarnish his legacy.

While voicing reservations, Obama reportedly signed the act because it guarantees continued military funding. He promised the provisions would comply 'with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.'

President Obama is criticized for his decision to sign a sprawling defense bill which includes controversial detainee provisions.

But human rights groups on the left say future presidents may apply the law differently, adding the act is a sweeping expansion of executive power -- beyond what was seen under the Bush administration. The ACLU and others slammed the president for putting his name to this year’s National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, out of concern that it would continue to allow indefinite detention while mandating military custody for some detainees."

According to the International Business Times, the only Republican presidential candidate that did not support this violation was Ron Paul the Republican representative from Texas. This bill has been for the past 49 years a defense budget but now section 1021 authorizes the indefinite detention of "covered persons" which includes American Citizens as outlined in the subsections of section 1021.

Bryan Apperson Continued by saying, "If the interpretations of this law are misused, this unconstitutional and draconian law brings may bring the U.S.A back to a level of freedom that predates the 1215 Magna Carta. According to subsection 1021 of the NDAA of 2012, which has now been signed into law, the government can now allegedly imprison citizens without a trial or charge as of the signing."

The United States Constitution states in Article II Subsection one regarding the executive branch: "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'"

The president now may be in breach of our Constitution and if so, under Article II Section 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Bitronic Technologies stance strongly urges the American people to "fight for our Constitutional rights, and not to stand for this tyranny."

Disclosure & Disclaimer Statement: This article is for your information only and the GREEN (LIVING) REVIEW received no compensation for any component of this article.