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.

 

Sedition Act - U.S. Law

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   
My point in posting was to show all those screaming about Clinton's Patriot act that if the government really wanted to do all the things they fear, an existing law - the Sedition Act - is already on the books.

I think that the fact this law has not been used to round up people is proof that there is no intent to do so. After all, it is much more explicit than the Patriot Act - no reading between the lines required.

Also, the moderator makes an excellent point about the bush bashers on ATS. I actually think my PC would run out of memory and crash if I did an ATS search on the word "Bush". Time to pass out the prozac yet?




posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Someone brought up an interesting point. We never talk about World War 1, which was, by todays standards, an incredibly unjust war. WMDs were used. The whole war started in the quest for land. There were no humanitarian needs bringing the nations to war, just greed. Yet, we just turn a blind eye to this war. Oh, that's right, the US and George Bush weren't the aggressors in that one. It was our brilliant, culturally superior, self assured (read: arrogant) European friends who started that war because their borders weren't large enough. Now, whenever we try to help people suffering, people immediately assume (mostly european, I'd like to add) that we're out to take their land. Well, that's not the point, we're there to help someone in need. If we wanted their land, we could just take it. What would they do, fight us to stop us? Heh. No, just like a liar will never believe anyone else, Europe won't believe that we could have good intentions -- we're just there to steal resources. Hmm...This might have to get its own thread...



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

djohnsto77
Do you have a link to the Congressional Declaration of War?

I don't understand, you are saying that the congressional authorization for the war on terror is not sufficient for a declaration of war?


The United States has formally declared war only five times: The War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II. In more than 200 other cases, the United States has made war or acted militarily without a formal declaration.

A formal declaration of war is probably required for some of the President's emergency wartime powers like the ability to suspend habeas corpus and to trigger the Sedition Act this thread is about, but I don't think that question has ever been answered by the Supreme Court.



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
So now even WWI was an illegal unjustified war? What about WWII?


What? I didn't say that or anything that could be inferred as that. Eugene Debs thought so, but I don't hold that belief. That's why I said "I don't follow his beliefs".


Clinton birthed the Patriot Act, Bush put it into use. Clinton was the liberal president who did nothing for his base, Bush is the conservative president who did nothing for his base. Remember the OK City bombing?


This is one of the most important things that those that believe "it's all Bush's fault" love to ignore. I remember hearing a story that Bill Clinton chuckled on Air Force One after OKC that "now I can get my terror bill passed."

Even further magnifying Bill Clinton's involvement to how we got to today:


conservativeusa.org

"The official said Defense Secretary William S. Cohen had recently signed off on a plan to create a Joint Task Force for Civil Support, whose commander would develop ways for the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force to aid Federal agencies in time of domestic crisis....

"Allusions to the Pentagon's new organizational plan emerged quietly last year when Dr. Hamre of the Defense Department gave a speech saying the appointment of a domestic military leader was all but inevitable and would be essential in helping stave off chaos."

*snip*

"We should not underestimate the deceit and deviousness of Mr. Clinton's plans to ‘move on’ by getting headlines for aggressive presidential actions to replace coverage of his impeachment trial. He fully understands how entering the Kosovo war many provoke terrorist retaliation within the United States and he is using that risk as the excuse to create a Domestic Terrorism Team headed by a military ‘commander in chief,’ with a $2.8 billion budget."


"Mr. Clinton has already issued a Presidential Decision Directive to authorize military intervention against terrorism on our own soil. Defense Secretary William Cohen said in an Army Times interview that ‘terrorism is escalating to the point that Americans soon may have to choose between civil liberties and more intrusive means of protection.’"

"Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre has been floating the idea of designating a unit of U.S. troops as a Homelands Defense Command to take charge in case of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Mr. Hamre argues that the military's role should be formalized under a four-star general, and he has even speculated about creating a binational command with Canada and calling it the ‘Atlantic Command.’..."


If you tend to believe that all the programs Bush has implemented are for his own use and not for the protection of the nation you have to surmise the same about the precedent setting things like the Presidential Decision Directive Clinton signed and Bush capitilized on. If you don't think Clinton or Gore or Kerry would be doing the same thing that Bush has you're blindly mistaken.

[edit on (1/11/0505 by PistolPete]



posted on Jan, 11 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   
First off, what the Heck are you holding there, centurian? A cat that ate a VW Bug?

To say that Bush is doing anything for "His own good" would be missing the mark. But, let's look at some stark contrasts in logic and try to figure it out.

When traveling by one of our economically failing airlines, you will get your testicles fondled, your breasts squeezed and your belongings pilfered. This is totally ineffective; all it does is makes it where you can't even carry a knife anymore if you travel, and it gets you conditioned to accept searches that remind me of searches I used to conduct on state inmates. Still, let's assume that our inept government is trying to do good, ok? Compare that to the totally porous borders where anything from tens of thousands of people per day pour over the border to...anyone care to guess what items have been dragged over here, and maybe sitting somewhere in downtown St. Louis by now? Are you telling me the same administration that can see having my nail clippers taken from me while enroute to San Antonio for a wedding can't see to stop the flow of EVERYTHING across a border just farther south of San Antonio? Come on!

By the way, you all need to get Alex Jone's Road to Tyranny! Watch the OK City bombing portion very closely; I'd forgotten all about that after 9/11. Remember the other bombs tha tdidn't go off? Remember them being mentioned in the news? Remember how they also said that the destruction was caused by a fertilizer bomb in a rental van? My limited knowledge in that area of secialty says that canb't happen, but what's more important is that people who ARE sarp in that area say that there is no way that happened. If a rock like me didn't buy it, something's wrong, but still, we've forgotten it.

Maybe we need to backtrack, reevaluate some things and then look around where we're at now.



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Here's a little food for thought.
Chocolate covered donuts.

Here's another one.
Who all here remembers Gulf War part I? If you were watching CNN like I was you'll remember that Hussein was told through diplomatic channels that we had no defense treaties with Kuwait and affairs between Irag and Kuwait were not our concern. That tidbit of info ran for part of the morning and then it was pulled from their news blocks. Since then, I've heard not one thing about that important piece of information.

Anyone else find that strange? Anyone else see that as a setup?

Why would Hussein be set up, one might wonder. Well, I think it seems pretty simple. Hussein was not part of the NWO crowd and had no intention of relinquishing sovereignty to the NWO.

No, look, I'm not defending Hussein, the evil madman that did horrible things to his citizenry; he wasn't that nice of a national steward, to say the least. What I am saying is that it smells like a preplanned move on the part of the NWO, and while everyone seems to see this as an American aggression, look at how things are set up. The U.S. is the muscle of the NWO right now, us and the UK. For right now.

Is anyone out there even remotely interested in this line of thought?



posted on Jan, 12 2005 @ 08:08 AM
link   
up here in canada we had two flags one was the union jack and in the 1960s we got our new flag the maple leaf.its just a symbol of an association of a group of people or ideas.why are symbol so important anyways?they divide us. make us feel small and never really last the test of time. anyways look at the pyraminds there just taking up space full of icons and symbols .what have those symbols done for us lately?



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 03:02 AM
link   
These thoughts are kind of jumbled but I worked late and wanted to get a reply in before I crashed...I'll be more coherent in about 8 hours...




Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Is anyone out there even remotely interested in this line of thought?


This line of thought is pretty much how I've been viewing events - past and current - for quite some time now. I generally believe things like it doesn't matter who the President is, they're all working for the same people. (I tell that to co-workers and friends all the time, they don't know what to think.)

There are several people I think that can be put in the same book as Saddam. Castro, Slobodan Milosevic, Kim Jong Il, Khameini all aren't or weren't playing well with the NWO - the nations these men lead, aside from Castro, pose a big problem with their standing armies and nuclear weapons and must be dealt with. The added bonus is the spoils of war. The global elite benefit from these spoils - people from many nations and political affiliations. Not just American Neo-Cons.

My thoughts on 9/11, after the initial shock and disbelief, weren't how could this happen, but why did this happen. I anticipated the Patriot ACT - I thought we'd get ID's soon after. Thankfully that hasn't happened yet.

This thread has gone quite off topic but it's all tied in. Woodrow Wilson, who was President under the Sedition Act, gave the NWO great momentum. FDR served under Wilson, he gave the NWO a big Barry Bonds sized injection of steroids. It seems like the counrty has been going the same direction for decades regardless of what political party is in power.

Ya, it's bedtime, I'll end with this quote.

Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976, killed in the Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down by the Soviets said:


The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent.


Me too Larry.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Here's a little food for thought.
Chocolate covered donuts.

Here's another one.
Who all here remembers Gulf War part I? If you were watching CNN like I was you'll remember that Hussein was told through diplomatic channels that we had no defense treaties with Kuwait and affairs between Irag and Kuwait were not our concern. That tidbit of info ran for part of the morning and then it was pulled from their news blocks. Since then, I've heard not one thing about that important piece of information.

Anyone else find that strange? Anyone else see that as a setup?

Why would Hussein be set up, one might wonder. Well, I think it seems pretty simple. Hussein was not part of the NWO crowd and had no intention of relinquishing sovereignty to the NWO.

No, look, I'm not defending Hussein, the evil madman that did horrible things to his citizenry; he wasn't that nice of a national steward, to say the least. What I am saying is that it smells like a preplanned move on the part of the NWO, and while everyone seems to see this as an American aggression, look at how things are set up. The U.S. is the muscle of the NWO right now, us and the UK. For right now.

Is anyone out there even remotely interested in this line of thought?


Yes very much so. Did April Gillespie know she was stitching the Iraqis up?

Probably not but she "may or may not have" said that any Iraqi incurrsion into Kuwait was an internal problem and would be veiwed as such by the US possibly!!!

Can you imagine Saddams face when he saw pappa Bush on the TV condemming the Iraqi action.

Same could be said of Iraq/Iran war. The west seemed to be helping both sides to some extent

Could this be why Saddam is not in the Hauge with Milosovic

Bet he has some great stories to tell.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by PistolPete



This line of thought is pretty much how I've been viewing events - past and current - for quite some time now. I generally believe things like it doesn't matter who the President is, they're all working for the same people. (I tell that to co-workers and friends all the time, they don't know what to think.)


I totally agree mate. Same in UK, its like whoever is in power its business as usual for the elite.
And if someone does try to do something they are Suicided or Accidented or some dirt will appear on them so they are shunned from society.

This works both ways look at Mandelson. Bilderburger who was thrown ouy of goverment for being a crook. He is now EU trade commisioner!!!

(blood boiling, rage deepening)



There are several people I think that can be put in the same book as Saddam. Castro, Slobodan Milosevic, Kim Jong Il, Khameini all aren't or weren't playing well with the NWO - the nations these men lead, aside from Castro, pose a big problem with their standing armies and nuclear weapons and must be dealt with. The added bonus is the spoils of war. The global elite benefit from these spoils - people from many nations and political affiliations. Not just American Neo-Cons.

Yes, yes, yes and everyone you mention fits into Barnetts non aligned gap


My thoughts on 9/11, after the initial shock and disbelief, weren't how could this happen, but why did this happen. I anticipated the Patriot ACT - I thought we'd get ID's soon after. Thankfully that hasn't happened yet.


But as someone pointed out the US anti terror legislation as with the UKs was mostly written prior to 911.


This thread has gone quite off topic but it's all tied in. Woodrow Wilson, who was President under the Sedition Act, gave the NWO great momentum. FDR served under Wilson, he gave the NWO a big Barry Bonds sized injection of steroids. It seems like the counrty has been going the same direction for decades regardless of what political party is in power.

Ya, it's bedtime, I'll end with this quote.

Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976, killed in the Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down by the Soviets said:


The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent.


Me too Larry.


The last 100 yrs are full of quotes like this.

My personal favorite is Dr Johannes Koeppl's words from a few years back declaring the NWO is real and is planning open world dictatorship in the next five years. I belive this was said in 2001 shortly after 911.

This guy was a NATO and German defence official and made presentations to Bilderburg, the CFR and the Trilateral Commision.

Needless to say he is out of a job!!!!



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 04:16 AM
link   
Its a violation of the constitution. The supreme court would easily overturn any conviction if it hasn't already struck the law down years ago.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 04:44 AM
link   

The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent.



From this quote, and what TC was saying, I think this -


Maybe the goal is not a one-world government.

A one-world government would mean no more war, right?

Isn't war how they make all their money? Isn't that how they keep the people divided? Isn't that their tool to stay in power?

Maybe the idea of a one world government was put out there so that we would think we know when the NWO comes to power. But they're already in power and the masses will never believe it because the one world government will never come about.

Because it's a lie.

To remain hidden.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by quango

The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent.



From this quote, and what TC was saying, I think this -


Maybe the goal is not a one-world government.

A one-world government would mean no more war, right?

Isn't war how they make all their money? Isn't that how they keep the people divided? Isn't that their tool to stay in power?

Maybe the idea of a one world government was put out there so that we would think we know when the NWO comes to power. But they're already in power and the masses will never believe it because the one world government will never come about.

Because it's a lie.

To remain hidden.

I agree they are already in control which makes me think why would they want to create a world dictatorship seeing that in many respects they have one already.

However

War is a means to an end. A very profitable one but one that is used to secure new markets and resources. When they own and control all this then they can dictate what they want.

Money is also a means to an end. Power is the key.

We are but a another resource to them. When all other resources are under thier control they will turn on us.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by bobjohnson

Originally posted by quango

Maybe the goal is not a one-world government.

A one-world government would mean no more war, right?

Isn't war how they make all their money? Isn't that how they keep the people divided? Isn't that their tool to stay in power?

Maybe the idea of a one world government was put out there so that we would think we know when the NWO comes to power. But they're already in power and the masses will never believe it because the one world government will never come about.

Because it's a lie.

To remain hidden.

I agree they are already in control which makes me think why would they want to create a world dictatorship seeing that in many respects they have one already.

However

War is a means to an end. A very profitable one but one that is used to secure new markets and resources. When they own and control all this then they can dictate what they want.

Money is also a means to an end. Power is the key.

We are but a another resource to them. When all other resources are under thier control they will turn on us.



But -
If they are in control now, then they already own all resources.

My current thinking goes like this -

What if THEY aren't united?

They're either fighting amongst each other using us as pawns - or - they are united, they do own everything, and they are merely engaged in a "friendly game of Risk".

Do they all 'serve the same master'?
Is there no one on their level fighting FOR US?
Or are we, the rest of humanity, a player in this game, who has been tricked into folding hand after hand?



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 07:42 AM
link   
I have heard of a bit of a rift in the club, and that Shrub is not with the Old Guard, but I find this hard to believe.

My opinion? I believe all this "Red White and Blue" crap from Shrub is a sleight of hand trick to make us think he's actually all for this country, while at the same time working against us. Take the border situation, for example. The influx of illegals is bad for the citizens here, good for Mexico (Lessens their population while at the same time the money sent back to Mexico by the illegal workers bolsters their economy) and at the same time helps corporations make more money by using cheaper workers. Meanwhile, the taxpayer will subsidize the healthcare woes that are surfacing. Let's not even talk about the accessibility of this country by terrorists due to the pourous border and what the next "Big Event" is going to do to the last remaining concepts of liberty.

Last night at work some of the really smart guys were talking (I was one of the ones merely listening) about PCL's and robotics and stuff and how we humans were becoming "obsolete" in many ways. Until they were talking about this stuff, it'd never dawned on me why the "Illuminati" would have a reason to upset the applecart of the workforce; after all, we, the workers, make their lives luxurious. But then it ocurred to me, with technology as it is and soon will become, if the world population was cut to a mere fraction of what it is now, they would still live the life of Riley, have thewhole world to their own pleasure and would have only a few million peasants to control rather than billions to manipulate through war, cable TV and 401(k)'s.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 12:17 AM
link   
I assure you that is a unConstitutional LAW why don't you think the Founding Fathers put that in the Constitution themselves? that law was passed 5 years after the Jew controled U.S. Gov put the 1913 "Fasle" Fed Reserve ACT into motion look at the conections and conect the dots, these are ALL Laws PREprepared for the coming "NEW WORLD ORDER"

[edit on 14-1-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   
There are lots of ways to control things without resorting to the Sedition Act. Effective control of the mass media is one way. Don't forget that the Liberal Media include Westinghouse (Viacom) and GE (NBC AOL-Time-Warner). For those thinking "washing machines" look into the huge military contracts these two have.

Corporate groupthink is another way of stifling dissent. How many of you working in industry (what remains of it here) for a company with more than 1,000 employees, say, could state loudly to one's boss, that the current administration is dangerously totalitarian in methods and goals, without being disciplined, subtly or otherwise?

Both examples were obvious in the Gulf War. It's about nullifying OPEC. It's always been in the U.S.'s "interests" (short term, anyway) to encourage CHEATING among the members. As Kuwait was doing doubly to Iraq: slant drilling and then hiding the un-agreed excess sales to boot. This got short shrift in the media, and the war was played like an exciting sporting event on CNN.

I'd be curious what other members' might add to a list of how to crush "sedition" without actually invoking the Act.

[edit on 14-1-2005 by Noumenon]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
I'm only posting the following tongue-in-cheek for all you Bush-haters that think anyone that doesn't believe the same way you do is a nazi or worse.

Sedition Act

Read the text of this existing law from 1918 (note: Bush wasn't even born yet and there were no such things as nazis). If this law was currently enforced, the lot of you would all be in one of those camps we keep reading about on ATS. Which kind of proves that things aren't happening the way you're all sooooo afraid of.



Umm, sorry, but this is not existing law. This part of the Act was repealed August 13, 1953, by Public Law 83-264.

If people don't believe me, and somebody can educate me on how to upload files, I can post a pdf of the text.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join