Enemies In Our Midst: Think the Patriot Act is Bad? Take A Look At This, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 19-12-2004 @ 03:34 PM by TrueAmerican
You know, at this point, why the hell doesn't the government just come right out and do it. Formally admit to banning the US Constitution, in favor of their way. At least that way we could all know what side we're on. Unfortunately, they ended up with all the firepower. At least that's what they think. Remember, public servants are sworn to uphold and defend the constitution. As a military person, you better figure it out. Because you either serve the constitution, or you serve the regime who is systematically tearing it apart. You were given your arms by the people to protect them and the ideals that this country was founded upon.

Our workable form of government outlined in the constitution is being hijacked right in front of you, in your face. Dear military men and women, have you indeed READ the constitution? Are you aware of what you are sworn to uphold? From your enlistement contract, I quote:
H. CONFIRMATION OF ENLISTMENT OR REENLISTMENT
22a. IN A REGULAR COMPONENT OF THE ARMED FORCES:
I,________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Well, it seems we have a problem here. You swore to uphold the Constitution first, and to protect it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And second, you swore to obey the orders of the President and your superiors. This asserts that the President and your superiors are in themselves upholding the constitution- because without the constitution, there would be no President, or armed forces under the US constitution itself. But when the President and Congress are not upholding the constitution, and on the contrary, are contriving laws that counter constitutional provision, guess what? They have become the very domestic enemies the constitution provides for to protect itself against.

How is it that we can let an administration, that rose through the very system provided by the constitution, turn right around and destroy it to suit their own needs? There's a reason that an ammendment to the constitution takes so much time and legal hassle. It is necessarily so, because any governmental act which subverts in any way a constitutional provision, should be a real hassle. Or shouldn't be at all.


reply posted on 19-12-2004 @ 09:46 PM by jsobecky
As far as I can gather from this thread, there is opposition to the Intel Bill because of the NID, who would be a political (Bush) appointee. That makes Bush a dictator in your eyes. Correct?

I've also heard that the government is banning the constitution.
Can you explain how that is happening? Specific examples, please.

From the article, I read:
Democracy Now elaborates on the new national ID: "There's all sorts of new technologies that could be incorporated into the driver's license to link it to all sorts of public and private-sector databases. And you could also imagine putting an RFID chip in the license that would allow it to be tracked remotely.

Using an RFID chip to track us remotely? I will welcome any discussion on this, using either passive or active RFID chips. Otherwise, it is sheer paranoia such as Chicken Little cried about.

ZeroDeep is worried about this:
Why are Americans so ignorant as to what the government does behind thier backs? It's as if they were willing to sacrifice personal liberties, so the corrupt Bush could just become a passive dictator.

To him, I offer this:
[One of Rep. James Sensenbrenner's] victor[ies] was the so-called lone wolf provision. Under current law, tracking terrorists who are believed to be acting separate from a terrorist organization — or as a lone wolf — must be pursued and investigated under criminal, not counterterrorism, law. This places often-severe hurdles in the path of investigators, with a silly double standard of affording civil liberties protections only to suspected terrorists who appear to be acting alone. Yet Democrats opposed this reform. The Judiciary chairman also won passage of stringent mandatory-minimum sentences for certain terrorism-related convictions. The production, construction, import, export, possession or use of dirty bombs, nukes, surface-to-air missiles and smallpox will now carry a statutory sentence of 25 years to life. If someone is killed, the penalty becomes either life in prison or a death sentence. Democrats opposed these mandatory minimums.

powerlineblog.com...

Is this what you object to, ZeroDeep? And what personal liberties are we sacrificing?

Finally, I would ask: do any of you know who authored this bill?

This could be a good topic, if we leave the emotion and Bush-bashing out of it.

Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^



ALL ATS`ers are terrorists
  Posted 2 days ago with 9 member flags
CNN Endorsing Terrorism
  Posted 5 days ago with 7 member flags
Obama\'s terror Drones.
  Posted 3 days ago with 6 member flags
Pair Detained in Twitter Homeland Threat Mix-Up
  Posted 10 days ago with 5 member flags