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.

 

Cops Using Small Doses of Martial Law

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Drew Da General
im done with you i leave you with these 2 words that best describe you....anal retentive.


Tisk Tisk.... and I was so enjoying this. LOL

And you never answered any of my questions. Hummm....
.

[edit on 16-1-2005 by Yxboom]




posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 01:47 AM
link   
One last time back on topic and no more personal insults.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Yup, they are gradually acclimating you to authoritarian law. You are not the first person they've done this, and you certainly won't be the last either. There are police vehicles everywhere in my city, and I have seen them stop people, for little to no reason, more than a few times. Just, yesterday, I saw a man walking a dog stopped by two police officers, further, the police officers were not even in uniform. They did however have an orange sleeveless coat on.

In a television movie shown recently on channel 4, called "Yasmin" it was shown how the police are terrorising Muslims in UK and how this is uniting the disgrunteled youth against them, even pushing them against joining the war against the "zionists" One of the clauses in the anti-terrorism laws shown in the film was very disturbing and scary.

A young British muslim woman goes to the police station to visit her husband. She's a modern British woman and was made to marry a man from Pakistan due to her father wishes. However, she wants a divorce from him, because she worried the police will send him to jail and she will have to wait for an indefinite period of time. The Pakistani man was arrested because he was an immigrant(legal however) from Karachi(Pakistan) The woman is then taken into an interrogation room. A police officer sits opposite of her asking her questions. Very vague, rhetorical and assuming questions. And behind is sitting a lawyer of some kind who tries to help her. It's goes as following(not word for word, I am recalling from memory)

Police officer:
What do you have to tell me.

Muslim woman:
What do you mean?

Lawyer
You don't have to answer his questions.

Muslim Woman
No, I will answer his questions. I have nothing to hide
(looks towards Police officer)
I have nothing to tell you. I am here to visit my husband, because I want him to sign my divorce papers, so I can get on with my life and he can get on with him. I don't want him in my life.

Police officer
Are you sure you have nothing else to tell me?"

Muslim Woman
What do you want me to tell you"?

Police Officer
You tell me

Muslim Woman
I've got nothing to tell you. What is going on?

Lawyer:
You don't have to answer his questions

Muslim Woman
I will answer his questions, because I've nothing to hide, I've done nothing.

Police Man
According to the terrorism act, section xxy, you can be charged for withholding information.

Muslim Woman
I am going to be charged for not giving information that I don't have, how do I get out of that?

Then she is arrested, put into a cell and given a Quran. She was innocent, and so was her husband. In fact earlier on the police break into her house with an armed squad and put guns to the head of teenagers and an eldery man.

While, this movie was fiction, it is actually based on real stuff going on down here. We are allowing Nazism to happen again. And it will, it's plain as day, that is happening. The NWO is a reality of our life today. And it just going to get worse and worse, till our lives are made hell.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 05:39 AM
link   
You forget...in order to get a warrent...you need pretty credible info...and a DA/Judges approval...its not the cops just busting down doors at random...



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by BasementAddix
You forget...in order to get a warrent...you need pretty credible info...and a DA/Judges approval...its not the cops just busting down doors at random...


That was old law mate. According to the anti-terrorism acts in US and UK, there is no need for a warrant to search citizens and no need for a triburnal to prosecute or jail. In the US the law is so bad, that you can be shot, without asking questions.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 06:26 AM
link   
YXboom...youre getting my "way above" vote...youre explaining things better then i probably ever could....



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child


That was old law mate. According to the anti-terrorism acts in US and UK, there is no need for a warrant to search citizens and no need for a triburnal to prosecute or jail. In the US the law is so bad, that you can be shot, without asking questions.


You still need a warrant for the average citizen....and no...if someone is shot...by LE...theres ALOT of questions...dont kid yourself...



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Holy cow! I go out for a movie and a beer and a coffee and a dinner and another beer and another coffee and this thread just goes absolutely ape!
Excellent!

Scout, I have already answered your question, at least I thought I did. In any case, at the chance that I didn't and nobody else has yet, the answer is , no. There is not a cop out there who hasn't enforced an unconstitutional law. I assure you this to be the case, I speak from first hand knowledge of police work.
The only case I can argue for the local cop of Hometown USA is that he has been intentionally misled in his training so that he has little understanding of the constitution and has no concept of the difference between a code, a statute and a constitutional law (If it is a real law, it is constituional). That defense only goes for so long as eventually, the rational human should begin to see conflicts, and if he choses to ignore them, then ignorance is no excuse.
Speaking of "Ignorance of the law..."; do you have to read in a law book that killing someone for their watch is a crime? Of course not? If you do so, you are ignoring the law as it has been programmed into your mind by the Creator. You don't have to read it. If you do not read that sitting on a milk crate is against the "law" are you ignoring it when you take a breather on a milk crate? Is there some innate feeling that should tell you that it is immoral to sit on the milk crate? No, there is not. Therefore, it is not a "law" by constitutional standards; there is nothing you can "ignore" with your Divinely engineered heart.

Scout, you ask what I suggest we do to correct the issue. Educate people, you suggest. Most people don't even have the foundation on which you can build their knowledge. I've figured that much out from experience. How many people do you think there are that know the difference between their natural rights (given to them by their Creator) and the congressionally created "civil" rights? That which is created by man can be taken away by man. The deception is when man creates a "right" that mirrors one granted you by God, and then man takes away that duplicate "right". Deception , trickery and deceit, but the government is not wrong. It is the citizens' fault for being ignorant of their natural rights.

Years ago a criminal juctice professor told us that our "rights" are meted out to us as the Supreme Court sees fit. His words were meant to be seeds, planted in many minds, hoping they would germinate in some. It took a coup[le of years afterward before I understood what he was trying to tell us, but eventually, I understood.

There are some who are ignorant, those who have a clue and will eventually understand and then there are those who are fully aware of the treachery that has taken our country, and along with it, the world. I fear there are not enough of us and that the global struggle of this church age is almost over.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 07:39 AM
link   

You still need a warrant for the average citizen....and no...if someone is shot...by LE...theres ALOT of questions...dont kid yourself...


No, I am not kidding myself. A warrant is not needed for terrorism operations against citizens, which includes, searching, fingerprinting and arresting. It is legislated by clauses in the anti-terrorism act and the patriot act. Further, acts of misidentification and abuse by the state police are not prosecuted. And to prosecute the police exercising the terrorism act is made very difficult for the citizen. As is it held, they are only doing their job.

There have been multiple cases of mobs of police forcing entry into people homes and throwing them down onto the floor with a gun pointed to their heads, even on kids and eldery people. No, questions are asked. It has been done in entire neighbourhoods. It has also been done in schools, again with police pointing guns at children. Here is proof:

www.prisonplanet.com...
www.prisonplanet.com...
www.prisonplanet.com...

Here is a general list of the kind of Police state measures against people:
www.prisonplanet.com...

As I said, we are letting Nazism happen again. It's only going to get worse and worse till we are living in the hell of the Nazi state.

[edit on 16-1-2005 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by BasementAddix
You forget...in order to get a warrent...you need pretty credible info...and a DA/Judges approval...its not the cops just busting down doors at random...


You mean a warrant signed by a judge with an affixed affidavit or something to that effect?

Even before any anti-terrosism bill, this concept was a bit passe as it applies to peacetime and not times of martial law or martial rule, nor does it apply to codes that should not apply to the sovereign man on the land, or "of" the land.

Again, back to the old traffic scene. You do 15 over. The cop pulls you over, writes out a citation and offers you th opportunity to sign it. You decline the invite. What happens? You are cuffed and stuffed. Is this a felony? No? So, where is the injured party; who is the one who is signing out the warrant, who is completing the affidavit and signing it? As we all know, you cannot injure a law as it is not a human being, and the officer is an officer of the court and not a citizen so he is not a candidate for the injured list; who is the injured party? Seems you've been dragged downtown improperly, huh? Again, depends on who you are and if the codes apply to you. Oh, they do, as I'm sure you have a driver's license, a SSA card, a birth certificate; all the documents that attach you to D.C.

What's that about the constitution?



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yxboom

Originally posted by Amuk
Snip...
So again WHERE does it says drugs are illegal?


Obviously, the courts have upheld constitutional interpretations that allow the government to make drugs illegal on the basis that they can be harmful. Conversely, an illegal drug may be legal if it is legitimately prescribed by a doctor.

It's elementary.

In your opinion, who should have the legal authority to interpret the constitution for legal enforcement?
.


Nah, not at all. You see, it is all hinged on commercial codes and the like.

What does the dealer and the buyer have in common? Federal Reserve Notes, that's what. One gives the other frn's. When that occurs, one has just stepped into their jurisdiction, and again, you are screwed.
You "operate a motor vehicle" down I-95, you are pulled over by one of those revenue collectors, you submit to a search, and the revenue collector finds in your suit case $1,000. ecause it against their code for you to travel with that many frn's the revenue collector takes your money and allows you to proceed. What are you complaining about? The federal reserve notes belong to "them"; be glad he allowed you to continue down the road in "their" motor vehicle!



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

Originally posted by BasementAddix
You forget...in order to get a warrent...you need pretty credible info...and a DA/Judges approval...its not the cops just busting down doors at random...

That was old law mate. According to the anti-terrorism acts in US and UK, there is no need for a warrant to search citizens and no need for a triburnal to prosecute or jail. In the US the law is so bad, that you can be shot, without asking questions.

The old law is still applicable to state, county and city officers. Only Federal agents are exempt from obtaining a warrant -- and only if they can articulate that the terroristic threat is a national security risk. Otherwise, the Federal agents still need to get a warrant.

Besides, how many warrants have you seen executed???? And for what???? And how many times have you seen Federal agents kicking in front doors??? Probably never, eh?



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by BasementAddix
YXboom...youre getting my "way above" vote...youre explaining things better then i probably ever could....

Thanks brother.


This forum is addicting.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   

The old law is still applicable to state, county and city officers. Only Federal agents are exempt from obtaining a warrant -- and only if they can articulate that the terroristic threat is a national security risk. Otherwise, the Federal agents still need to get a warrant.


The anti-terrorism laws render the old laws void when exercised. If a civillian is arrested, seached or hassled under the anti-terrorism act without a warrant - it is legal. I suggest you read the patriot act.


Besides, how many warrants have you seen executed???? And for what???? And how many times have you seen Federal agents kicking in front doors??? Probably never, eh?


Never? I've already mentioned several cases of this occuring. The links are bright red. Click on them.

[edit on 16-1-2005 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 10:26 AM
link   
May i add bounty hunters to the list that dont need a warrant to gain access to your home but your local police will need a warrant for a certain reason to gain entry forget terrorist acts! lets say they have credible evidence that you have narcotics in your home they have to gain more info bring it to the judge for a serviceable warrant then they get a team of 8-10 guys then they come into your house but but! they will shout for you to open the door if you dont within the givin time limit which is a 10-11 secs heh your door will be knocked off and they will serve the warrant and check your house forget about the terrorist stuff for a minute..


[edit on 16-1-2005 by ShadowMan]



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

The old law is still applicable to state, county and city officers. Only Federal agents are exempt from obtaining a warrant -- and only if they can articulate that the terroristic threat is a national security risk. Otherwise, the Federal agents still need to get a warrant.


The anti-terrorism laws render the old laws void when exercised. If a civillian is arrested, seached or hassled under the anti-terrorism act without a warrant - it is legal. I suggest you read the patriot act.

A Federal agent is not allowed to negate the old search warrant laws (in order to implement the Patriot Act) unless he can articulate why it is a threat to national security. If you believe that a Federal special agent can violate a person's constitutional rights, based exclusively on a whim and without articulated reasons, then you are legally mistaken.

Federal special agents are trained to obey the laws of the land. You write as if the Federal agents are using warrantless searches Carte Blanche, but that is simply not true. Posting a couple of online newspaper articles where the police accidently kicked in the wrong door to the wrong house (while they were executing a search warrant) does not support your theory that Federal agents are conducting warrantless searches as a matter of norm and without articulated reasons.



Originally posted by Indigo_Child

Besides, how many warrants have you seen executed???? And for what???? And how many times have you seen Federal agents kicking in front doors??? Probably never, eh?

Never? I've already mentioned several cases of this occuring. The links are bright red. Click on them. ]

Those are links to things that other people alledgedly saw. You did not witness those alledged incidents.


Indigo_Child, my question to you remains:
    "How many search warrants have you seen executed? How many times have you seen officers kicking in peoples doors?"
I speculate that the answer will be 0 (zero, nadda, zip, zilch). LOL


Indigo_Child, say it slowly with me: " Z - E - R - O "


[edit on 16-1-2005 by Yxboom]



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Sorry, nothing personal, but not interested. Here we deny ignorance.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   
By not answering the question, you answered it.


Thank you kindly, sister.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yxboom
By not answering the question, you answered it.


Thank you kindly, sister.


That's brother. And I am not answering the "question" because you are an ignormorus, and despite all of the facts, which you will dismiss as "police mistake" you will continue with your delusions of the police man being your best friend. Even though there is an actual person here in this discussion who has insider information in the police department, who is telling you otherwise. The actual topic author is telling you otherwise. I am telling you otherwise. I am not going to waste my time with a newbie who just doesn't have a clue and does not listen to others.

[edit on 16-1-2005 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drew Da General
I'm glad i started this post.i laugh at the above for he is trying to call me a liar.i'm going to kill 2 birds with 1 stone here(shot and yxboom).have you not read the other posts here in this thread?about 98% of the people in this thread have something negative to say about LE.have you not read the similar stories here?.


Yes i have read some; not all of the other threads similar to yours and guess what just as was your case there was no evidence furnished to back up their claims as was the case with you, why is that?

Also I did not call you a lair, what I said was I highly doubt one person would be arrested two times no less for simply walking a dog. Why not give us the rest of the details on the story? Just because you say it is so does not make it so until you furnish proof it actually took place. The same applies to the others that have jumped on your bandwagon. If they want to make accusations they should be ready to furnish proof when asked to do so.


When in doubt always remember rule 1 of the terms and conditions for posting on ATS.

1.) You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.

Seems very clear to me. I will wait for your proof now. Thank you




top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join