You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

The Amazing Rise and Fall of Presumption of Innocence

Jan Wellmann
Jan WellMann / Video Interview
Published: Saturday 9 March 2013
It’s a long journey from the concept of “freeman” to “NDAA” and there is probably only one man who can explain it.

Anyone Heard Of Presumption Of Innocence?

The most bizarre part of Section 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is that almost no one has heard about it.

And whoever has heard about it, doesn’t want to talk about it.

It’s almost as if someone took Dr. Goebbels’ “The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed” –dictum and mutated it into a 21st century super weapon:

“Tell the truth, but make it so shocking that no one wants to hear about it.”

No one wants to hear about the military having the power to detain you on American soil, without due process, indefinitely, at the discretion of the President. It sounds too Stalin. It reeks of conspiracy theory. Besides, it’s clearly unconstitutional. So let’s go get some lunch.

That’s why on December 4, 2012, the new NDAA passed the Senate with a 98-0 vote. Almost everyone was out at lunch, except the seven individuals who decided to sue Obama instead. But other than that, the resulting rumpus was minor.

Since Feb. 13, “The Seven” are on their way to the Supreme Court. But no one wants to hear about it. A few individuals against the United States government, it sounds all too Matthew McConaughey, unless you’re a natural-born activist.

Chris Hedges, the leading plaintiff in the case against Obama and former New York Times war correspondent, writes about “NDAA and the Death of the Democratic State.” But no one wants to really read about it.

Most aspiring journalists and independent minds that become curious about NDAA find that there is a deafening silence around the topic. When they try to raise questions, the silence deafens them further.

Then there are the conspiracy buffs. They distance the problem from the mainstream audience even further. No one wants to be associated with folks who think that the President could be a reptile.

And then there is Noam Chomsky. He looks at the situation from the orbit, comfortably snug in his multidisciplinary mental space station, focusing on the connections between events—rather than the events themselves.

It’s a long journey from the concept of “freeman” to “NDAA.” And there is probably only one man who can explain it.

Author pic
ABOUT Jan Wellmann



Jan Wellmann is a producer/entrepreneur based out of Los Angeles. He conceptualizes, packages and realizes early-stage ventures with creative and financial partners in Europe and U.S. Wellmann founded several pioneering production and new media ventures. As an example, Riot Entertainment revolutionized mobile entertainment. IntelliGame pioneered educational games with a Disney co-production. Mandrake Productions was one of the early CGI pioneers in Europe. Trainers’ House became a leading sales & marketing training consultancy. Currently Wellmann is involved with new ventures as co-founder, investor, or advisor. ADAIA is bringing out the world’s first Adventure Smarphone end of 2013. HoneyColony, a social hub for healthy lifestyle, is launching February 2013. VOUCH is an e-commerce platform that measures and leverages commercially relevant social influence. On the film side, he produced and directed award-winning documentary films. In between all the distractions, he likes to take pictures, read and run up hills.

Poor article... you're

Poor article... you're railing against something, assuming that your readers know what it is... You're correct, nobody's heard of it. Why not tell us what it is and why you're opposed to it? And the comment about Chomsky - is that criticism or praise of him for his views? You accuse him of looking at something "from orbit", and the next sentence says "only one man can explain it".

I read the articles here to get a quick, concise opinion of what people think is important. Are you expecting us to listen to a 12-minute interview to find out Chomsky's opinion? Then why are you writing the article? It seems kind of lazy just to set up Chomsky's video interview. I'd rather wait until Chomsky publishes his own piece.

There have been other

There have been other articles on Nation of Change dealing with the NDAA. Perhaps the author is giving you too much credit.

Why Noam is fifty years late

Why Noam is fifty years late when JFK said Israel and the US would be the most dangerous forces aligned against world peace.

If the NDAA is found to be

If the NDAA is found to be unconstitutional, then the drone program and other violations of due process will have to end. But apparently it passed the Senate 98-0, and the House in order to become law. So there are quite a few people who think it passes muster. Until such time as it is found unconstitutional, there is legal justification for such actions. This is how our government is supposed to work. Our elected representatives write and pass bills, if a bill makes it through both Houses, the President must sign it into law, and then any citizen can challenge that law and have their day in court. Considering the bill passed by such a wide margin, I suspect there is more to it than is portrayed in the op-ed by Mr. Wellman. I noticed that he is a person who "conceptualizes, packages and realizes early-stage ventures", so perhaps he has let his active imagination run away with him a bit. If not, more power to the seven, and praise is again due our Democratic process.

Well J.R. you and so many

Well J.R. you and so many more Sheeple need to wake up. "If the NDAA is found to be unconstitutional" - Federal district Judge Katherine B. Forrest in May of 2012 did find the NDAA as unconstitutional.
What is truly sad is that so many of our Congress voted for this bill that violates the 5th,6th and 14th amendments, and Article I, Section 9, The Writ of Habeas Corpus. It is beyond belief that so many Lawyers could have read this bill and not come to the same conclusion that I a non-lawyer did, which is that it violates the Constitution. What is worse these same Congressional morons passed it again this year. Both major parties of the Demos and Repugs have sold out "We the People".

Comment with your Facebook account

Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...