It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Congress reaffirms indefinite detention of Americans under NDAA.

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   
I also want to point out is your Constitution is a amazing thing, value and treasure it.

Don't let politician hungry for power dilute and twist into a irreverent document,

Don't let them create grey areas.




posted on May, 23 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok
Its not just some people on an internet forum its in real life too.
Yes believe it or not some Americans believe we dont need guns even with this tyrannical government coming down on us.
Trust me ill fight if need be ,i just dont wanna plaster it out there everywhere and be brought down before I get a chance to fight.

Peace.



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Exactly Ewok. This document should be treasured. It is why people are required to swear an oath to it, and not politicians. Politicians, are only there to give themselves and others more power. You want Statesmen, or Anti-Federalists in power.

99.9% of the people here were never educated to even know it's power (gee, I wonder why). The World War 2 generation recognized the problems here, and fixed it all too via treaty. To bad no one cares to actually read what they DID legally. You were made a person under UN Charter and Treaty. Our courts, say we are not a person, therefore you have no standing in front of them to bring complaints. Judges however, must abide by Treaties, as the 2nd supreme law of the land (Article 6). Denying you access to the court system by claiming you are not a person, is a violation of treaty, and thus, a violation of Article 6.

Fancy how they did that eh? Did you really think the Oligarchy wasn't already established prior to the first two world wars?


Preamble rights alone:
We the people have the right, to be considered people.
We the people have the right, to form a more perfect Union. This means that the Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation, should be consulted. The Articles of Confederation formed the "perpetual union". The US Constitution was designed to make it more perfect.
We the people have the right to establish justice. Ie, we can return to the Common Law Grand Jury, at any time.
We the people have the right to insure domestic tranquility. Ie, this law is unlawful. Anyone who wrote this, should be arrested for violations of TITLE 18 USC 241-242, TITLE 42 USC 1983, 1985-1986.
We the people have the right to provide for the common defense (including the Militia upholding the laws of the union, Article 1, Section 8, 2nd Amendment Bill of Rights)
We the people have the right to promote the general welfare (including using new technologies and monetary systems to replace old)
We the people have the right to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves, and our posterity.
We the people have the right to ordain, and establish, the Constitution for the United States of America.

That is the black letter of the law in the preamble alone. This "law" is already Unconstitutional via United States Constitution, Kellogg-Briand Pact (war, as an instrument of national policy, is illegal. ie, war against your own people), and UN Charter. All people have the right to life.

en.wikipedia.org...

Militarism is a social disease here, and it must be cured. The only way to do that, is one truth at a time.
edit on 23-5-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-5-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-5-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-5-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-5-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   
An interesting read;

matrix/constitution



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
I also want to point out is your Constitution is a amazing thing, value and treasure it.

Don't let politician hungry for power dilute and twist into a irreverent document,

Don't let them create grey areas.

You are completely right we have a treasure that no one seems to remember and pretty soon our constitution will be nothing because our founders left us a frame work that needed to be enforced. When we don't enforce our constitution we loose it.



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

RT - From 2012
NDAA unconstitutional: Federal judge bans Obama from indefinitely detaining Americans

Judge Katherine B. Forrest has answered a request made by US President Barack Obama last month to more carefully explain a May 16 ruling made in a Southern District of New York courtroom regarding the National Defense Authorization Act. Clarifying the meaning behind her injunction, Judge Forrest confirms in an eight-page memorandum opinion this week that the NDAA’s controversial provision that permits indefinite detention cannot be used on any of America's own citizens.

Last month Judge Forrest ruled in favor of a group of journalists and activists whom filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of Section 1021 of the NDAA, a defense spending bill signed into law by President Obama on New Year’s Eve. Specifically, Judge Forrest said in her injunction that the legislation contained elements that had a "chilling impact on First Amendment rights” and ruled that no, the government cannot imprison Americans over suspected ties with terrorists.


Click link for remainder of article.

It does not matter if Congress reaffirms it - The Federal court ruled that section of the law as illegal / unconstitutional and issued an order preventing the use of it.

The NDAA does not apply to US citizens.

edit on 23-5-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

What gets me is how is it not treason for the US president to sign such a act that clearly violates the US constitution?



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Yup, been saying that it's a lie since day one.

Guess what folks, hope it's you that's detained and not me.

Thanks



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Xcathdra

What gets me is how is it not treason for the US president to sign such a act that clearly violates the US constitution?


The legislation originated from Congress so we should start there. Once it was signed the President became as culpable as Congress.

The law had to be in place and persons had to be affected by the law in order to have standing to challenge it, which is what happened.

As for treason - While the actions by Congress and the Executive are idiotic, it does not meet the federal criteria.

What I would love to see happen is for the NDAA to be applied to members of our government. They have provided funds / equipment to terrorists. They have also demonstrated by their actions and inactions that the US government represents foreigner interests above those of the people they are answerable to.


ETA - Im thinking maybe we submit a we the people petition and see how it goes on applying the NDAA to our government.
edit on 23-5-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry
Yup, been saying that it's a lie since day one.

Guess what folks, hope it's you that's detained and not me.

Thanks


How many American citizens have been detained under this law?



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

losing rights every day more



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

No, I do not agree with you at all. We should start with the lawyers, judges, and attorneys that wrote this verbal garbage first. Congress doesn't write anything anymore. They don't even read most bills. Private thinktanks write the "law". Congress is told to vote on them, based upon who ever they are beholden to for campaign finance.

Who are the thinktanks made up of? Time to apply Article 3, Article 6, UN Charter, Kellogg-Briand, TITLE 18 USC 3332, 241, 242, and TITLE 42, 1983, 1985, 1986 to all of them who participated in one of the greatest beaches of freedom from fear this nation has ever known.

Congress are accessories after the fact in most cases today. We'll get to them, but first, the legal system must be cleaned out of the oligarchy, corruption, and mass fraud, so the wheels of justice can begin to spin again.

Also I don't care about federal treason laws. I laughed. You support the Fox guarding the henhouse? Wow. Thanks for sharing that with us.

Federal laws are fiction of law. Not the real law.

What does the Constitution say is treason? Isn't levying war against the people treason? Article 3. I consider threatening to drone kill any one here very seriously. To do so, and signing it, is a blatant declaration of war against the people's rights, and our constitution. This law is preparing to war against your own people, and is written in that way to be threatening. I also consider breaking treaty and the social contact an act of war against the people as well.

But but but, the president must listen to a judge, and not kill someone on American soil that the military wants dead? Is that some kind of twisted joke that the media controllers want us to believe? When has the law stopped any nation who becomes drunk with blood?

We can't even be told who the enemy is anymore. That's "classified". Just pay your taxes!

Bull.

You really need to join team humanity, before there is no more humanity. Not keep one foot in the door.


edit on 23-5-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-5-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-5-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-5-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

And the PATRIOT act was for combating terrorism, with plenty of civil protections built into it, right? What is it used for now? Can we revisit your assessment in 50 years?

Past performance, is not indicative of future application.



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Your next president needs to be one of those that voted nay


It should be fairly obvious who the next "candidates" will be for president. Their vote won't matter though.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 12:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry
Yup, been saying that it's a lie since day one.

Guess what folks, hope it's you that's detained and not me.

Thanks


How many American citizens have been detained under this law?


And when (I'd like it to be 'if', but I also want a lot of things) it starts to happen, how will the course be changed at that point? Many people won't even stand up at the polls to actually say what they really want for fear of judgement due to political correctness (censorship) and social engineering.

What I don't understand is that many people are all up in arms for many smaller things, like say firearms ownership, because the "potential is there for danger", but people willingly look past this and trust a known group of narcissistic, self-serving liars to give themselves the potential to run amok with something far more powerful and sweeping, far more dangerous, yet it gets 'blown off'. Interesting.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 01:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Not Authorized

Actually Congress does put the laws together and introduces them. Their staff and input from third parties exist, but its the representative or Senator who must support and introduce them to either chamber. Special interests can demand all they want but in the end the final version of the bill is determined by Congress and their respective committees.

We don't elect special interest groups, we elect representatives.

The special interest groups, as much as they annoy the piss out of me, are doing what they are suppose to be doing. The representative on the other hand is present to represent the people and not special interest groups. So yes, we start with the elected official.

As for federal treason its very relevant. While I understand your position regarding it I am not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater in an attempt to make major changes in a manner that will do more harm than good.

Knee jerk reactions and the legislation that comes from it is exactly how we got the Patriot Act and the NDAA. Not to mention the Military commission acts from Bush and Obama.

When caner is located the immediate possibilities are designed to reduce / remove the cancer in a manner that leaves the patient with the best possible outcome on survival. Finding a lump on the palm of your hand does not mean you cut the arm off at the shoulder.

The simple fact federal courts / judges have ruled in the manner they have with the NDAA, the Patriot Act and the MCA 2006 tells me the system can still work. So long as the system is functioning it means there is a way to resolve / fix it.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 01:16 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackboxInquiry

Because removing firearms from the public actually would allow the government to behave in a manner that would strip ever more rights from the people. The 2nd amendment was designed as a last resort to counter government actions that are taken against the will of the people.

"The beauty of the 2nd amendment is it won't be needed until the Federal government tries to revoke it".

When the NDAA came out, people complained about it like no other, and they still do. Even when the courts have ruled against it, people still like o run around and make claims it can still be used, when in fact it cannot. Are their laws that will trump state laws? Absolutely.

Any type of action against the US that deals with WMD's being set off in the US automatically becomes federal jurisdiction. Some federal laws are completely inadequate and others are non existent because of state laws. The most recent change was trespassing. There was no federal law dealing with it, which meant they had to rely on local and state police for those charges.

the feds finally passed a federal trespassing law that is applied to federal events / designated by the DHS. Prior to the 1st world trade center bombing the mindset, and by extension the laws, focused on actions against US assets in foreign countries. The mindset was an attack would not occur in the US. When it happened people were left scratching their heads. Same with military radars and their coverage inside the US.

Until it happened, the system was seen as working just fine.

I have no issues with laws that allow the investigation, charge, arrest and prosecution of foreigners and US citizens performing those actions inside the US. I do have an issue with indefinite detentions and the use of the military courts to prosecute those individuals.

The one things people MUST keep track of is Posse Comitatus. Contrary to what people think, it only applies to federalized military units. State guard units can be used in law enforcement functions since they answer to the State and not the federal government. There is absolutely nothing in the US Constitution that prevents the use of federal military units in law enforcement capacity. The posse Comitatus laws were passed at the end of the civil war. Those same laws can be amended / removed by Congress.


All the more reason for people to keep track of what the government is doing and to annoy their reps when items of interest come up.

Come to think of it I am curious if the We the people setup or the one Congress put in place has had anyone start a petition to end contributions from businesses.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 01:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Xcathdra

What gets me is how is it not treason for the US president to sign such a act that clearly violates the US constitution?


There is precedent for this and much further beyond it, really. It's happened before. Different circumstances, but same level of perceived threat. Total war.

There was FDR and the Internment camps, but what compares more closely was the suspension of habeas corpus under Lincoln. It was in the context of a civil war, but it's precedent if someone wants to get fancy about it. (The courts also said only Congress could do it after that, but the precedent was as much Lincoln doing what he chose to do until the court acted.)

Lincoln and Habeas Corpus

If you really want a look at America at it's worst and beyond where we're at now? There is always.......

The Sedition Act of 1918

... Where mere speech or disagreement with policies could buy a person 20 years in Prison. It lasted only a few years, but what a low point.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 07:35 AM
link   
All I know is that this sinking rat ship won't last much longer.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra





top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join