Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Which is Outdated: The Constitution? Or The Patriot Act!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 27 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Doctor of Divinity, Dr. Bob Trefz, in a video-taped interview, speaks to a pastor about how the Inquisitions were run. You are to now compare what you hear with the Patriot Act:
Jesuit Agenda video, Part I number 1

Bob Trefz: In the Spanish Inquisitions, the most pious and the most holy celebration of the Papacy was the Ado De Fe, the burning of heretics at the stake. And here I have Henry Charles Lee's History of the Inquisition of Spain. Now Henry Charles Lee is the definitive work on this subject. He went into the very archives of Spain. It was called the Celebrado in the Spanish Inquisition, the service of burning people at the stake. They would have choirs singing Te Deums. They would have a thousand notables marching. The king would be present. And here's a chapter called, "The Celebration" right here. The Celebration. The Celebration of the Ado de fe. And if people found that they were losing their nerve as they watched people burning at the stake and wanted reconciliation with the church, they could request that and the Inquisitors would speak with them. And if they decided to grant them reconciliation, then Canon Law said that they had to spend the rest of their days in prison.

So you were faced, in the Inquisition, if you were even suspect of being a heretic, and Leonard Levy, in his Origins of the Fifth Amendment, a Pulitzer prize winning book in 1969, says that anyone that got in the coils of the Inquisition, of all of those individuals, there is not one record of anyone escaping unscathed. So once you were suspected, that was it. And it was the stake, if you were faithful, and imprisonment if you recanted.

[The Patriot Act works on suspicion and no facts. Any leader who doesn't want to confirm the justice of his judgments to therefore mete out his manner of justice in secret and without challenge or confirmation is a tyrant and a killer and not an American.]

Pastor: So you had to be so totally against the heretics to escape even being caught. It kind of like reminds me of the French Revolution, to where anybody that was even suspect of being a sympathizer was taken to the guillotine.

[As we are witnessing, every historically brutish regime had the principles of the Patriot Act in operation within it! Added to the Communists and the Nazis is the statement by this pastor of similar principles as the Patriot Act being meted out during the French Revolution.]

Bob Trefz: .... Henry Charles Lee also has a definitive work on the Inquisition of the Middle Ages. And he tells in this book... He tells of how the Inquisitors would come into an area. They would call all the population out. Everyone was to tell everything they knew about any heretic. There was only one area that escaped from this, and that was because the people covenanted not to tell on each other, and the Inquisitors couldn't do anything. It was still in the early stages of the Inquisition. They had ways of dealing with that later on. But, betrayal of others was the proof of conversion you see. And what happened was the Inquisition was designed to instill TERROR in the population. Utter fear so that the people would subject themselves, tell everything they knew, they [the Inquisitors] had records of everything across Europe, and any heretic their genealogy was examined and they kept records for generations.
[The War On Terror, has the principles of the Inquisitions within it. The Big Lie Theory of Adolf Hitler needs to be used to pedal it. By advertising it the opposite of its real nature and intent, people are liable to be fooled by it.]

The difference between Roman Catholic Canon Law and English Common Law and American constitutionalism is that our whole system of law that we have in America rests upon English Common Law, which battled against Canon Law in providing safeguards and guarantees for the people of England and then ultimately in America.




posted on May, 27 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   
For instance: under Canon Law you can be arrested in the middle of the night under suspicion because of rumor. The judge can make the decision to have you arrested himself. You can be arrested in the middle of the night. Your family don't know where you've gone. You're in prison. You can be judged by the Judge in secret, and put to death in secret. No one ever knows what happened to you... there in the Dark Ages....

[Does something sound familiar here? How is it then that President Bush and Alberto Gonzalez tells us that the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions are "outdated" due to the failure of President Bush to protect 3,000 citizens, claiming a new era has come, to then prescribe principles from the Inquisitions hundreds of years earlier upon the United States to then recommend it for the world??]

Now, under English Common Law, first of all, if someone comes and takes you away in the middle of the night, your wife can get a Writ of Habeus Corpus to demand the jailer to show what cause why you are in prison. Here's the body. You bring the body up out of the jail. Here's the reason he's in. And then the accusations have to be made in public by an accuser. The judge is impartial. There is a jury that decides of your peers that decides whether you are guilty or innocent. And then the impartial judge would mete out the sentence. And in our whole Bill of Rights there is the defense against Roman Catholic Canon Law.

Now that's why, with the new supreme court which has been brought into position through the use of the abortion issue... the new Judiciary and the new Executive and Legislative aspects of our government are all slanted now in the direction in which we are rolling back the clock and we're moving back to Canon Law. [Are therefore the Constitution of the United States and the Geneva Conventions, "OUTDATED??"]

Even in decisions like Arizona vs. Fulmonatti, the dissenting justices said, "We have now in this case turned away from our accusatorial legal system and accepted the inquisitorial system," because now forced-confessions could be accepted in court.



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   
This interview took place some TEN YEARS before 911!!



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Bush supporters:

Why no answer? Which is "outdated?" The Constitution? Or the Patriot Act?



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Since the Patriot Act comes right out from the Inquisitions, it is obvious it is far more "outdated" than is the Constitution.

THIS IS A TERRIBLE EMBARRASSMENT AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND PROVES THAT THIS ONCE THOUGHT OF MIGHTY NATION IS ABOUT TO FALL!



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Which came first: The chicken or the egg?

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 28-5-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 02:08 AM
link   

vrey good



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 05:30 AM
link   
BOTH


letters on paper guarantee nothing except pollution maybe



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by tmac100
Which came first: The chicken or the egg?
[edit on 28-5-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]


This was solved 2 or 3 days ago I think by a scientist. The egg came before. It's been proved by scientists!

The egg came first! Congratulations!


And it's obvious that the Patriot Act is a Satan Act. It's against liberties! When will the average joe will understand that??

[edit on 29-5-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 12:26 AM
link   
But they told us that the Constitution was outdated. They, of course, did not add that because of this the Presidential Oath of office needs to change to pledge loyalty to any president that fails to protect the American people during attacks like 911.

The Patriot Act, being used to replace the Constitution, has the same principles as the Inquisitions however. And that took place hundreds of years ago. The Constitution arrived as a protest against it.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Just this fact alone: That they are telling us the American Constitution is "OUTDATED" to replace it with the principles of the Inquisitions found in the Patriot Act shows there is a Bush Propaganda team!

I mention this all the time, and they skip right over it and don't clear up these issues. They are not hear to clear up anything, except for their own treasonous desires.

They are strong when everything is cloudy!



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   
In all your ranting, I have yet to see you give an example of how the USAPATRIOT Act is diametrically opposed to any Constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties. Nor have you shown us where anyone has called the constitution "outdated," nor have you demonstrated in any way why it is an either-or proposition, and most of all you absolutely refuse to show in what respects the USAPATRIOT Act is like the Inquisition.

No wonder you couldn't goad anyone into talking with you on these matters. It's obvious you were just trying to start some sheet.

Harte



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Just you stating those things doesn't make them true. This is a free country you know. I already issued the thread showing the principles of the Inquisitions. In the Inquisitions, did a person have rights? Was a person condemned during the Inquisitions using facts, an open accuser, the accused being confronted publicly? Open justice? Did the Inquisitions allow for the families of the accuse to have an accounting of what happened to him?

If you never saw the Patriot Act before, that's fine with me. I SAW IT BEFORE! Nothing in its principles is new. Also, the Inquisitions were also run on the premise of SECURITY.

I have already heard it reported on the news that some of the Bush team have called the Constitution an outdated document, and done the same thing to the Geneva Convention declarations. If you never heard these things, then use the information provided in the links I posted just in case such a thought ever comes up. Take it easy and make that heart pump less.

[edit on 1-6-2006 by tmac100]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Finalizing Question: When Was the Constitution, "Outdated?"

Now surrounded by guys telling us that we always had terrorism and therefore should have always used Bush policies to combat it, we have to enter in the finalizing question.

Since implementing Bush policies will require us to believe the Constitution is OUTDATED, and yet TERROR was always a concern for America as the Bush propaganda team has been demanding that we believe...

HOW FAR BACK WAS THE CONSTITUTION... OUTDATED??

=========

The Constitution was OUTDATED back in the 1940s??

By the Bush propaganda team telling us the terrorism we witness since Bush was always here and that Bush policy is the only combat against it, they are telling us...

THE CONSTITUTION WAS ALWAYS OUTDATED FROM THE BEGINNING OF THIS COUNTRY.

That makes them ENEMIES to this country.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Here’s my two cents on whether the current Congress ought to be allowed to tamper with the US Constitution.

The Constitution has been available for these yahoos to read and attempt to comprehend. Either most of them haven’t read it or they simply do not have the basic intelligence to assimilate abstract concepts.

The current Congress infected by party animal Republicans marching in lock-step to the tune of special interest groups and party demigods should not even be able to handle our most important document…let alone presume to alter it. The thought of the current yahoos actually being able to change our document, because the Constitution belongs to the American People and these self elevated elitists are supposed to working for us, in any way is so abhorrent as to cause a pandemic of national nausea.

The "Patriot's" Act is a prime example of how idiots and fleabags can "lead" a lethargic public into doom causing one of the most unforgivable crimes against ones self, the squandering of hard won freedoms of the population;s own volition

But, hey! Maybe that’s just me.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by tmac100
Just you stating those things doesn't make them true.

What have I stated that can even remotely be construed as untrue?


Originally posted by tmac100 This is a free country you know. I already issued the thread showing the principles of the Inquisitions. In the Inquisitions, did a person have rights? Was a person condemned during the Inquisitions using facts, an open accuser, the accused being confronted publicly? Open justice? Did the Inquisitions allow for the families of the accuse to have an accounting of what happened to him?

No, no, no,no, no and no. But what has this to do with the USPATRIOT act? That is what I've said you have not shown us.


Originally posted by tmac100If you never saw the Patriot Act before, that's fine with me. I SAW IT BEFORE! Nothing in its principles is new.

Here's a link to the actual Patriot Act:
thomas.loc.gov...:15:./temp/~mdbsAYMj5T::

Now, sometimes that link dies out and must be renewed through a new search at that site, so don't get excited if you can't go right to it - it's because of the yearly changes made to the Act itself.
The USPATRIOT Act applies to a couple of sections of U.S. Code - that's right, it's not a law in and of itself, it is mostly just a listing of several (mostly minor) changes made to what was then the current law.

Most changes apply to Title 18 US Code
And Title 50 US Code (FISA)


Originally posted by tmac100Also, the Inquisitions were also run on the premise of SECURITY

What are you talking about? Security? That is completely ridiculous.


Originally posted by tmac100I have already heard it reported on the news that some of the Bush team have called the Constitution an outdated document, and done the same thing to the Geneva Convention declarations.
I believe that the Geneva Conventions were referred to as "outdated" by Alberto Gonzales. This is a perfectly defensible position, by the way. Notice that I do not say that it is a correct position, merely defensible.

But hey, you heard something in the news, right? Well, practically every single news source on Earth has a webpage - yet you don't link us to these stories you "heard." Sorry, but I don't believe people that just come on here stating what they claim are facts when they are unwilling to provide any evidence for what they are saying.


Originally posted by tmac100If you never heard these things, then use the information provided in the links I posted just in case such a thought ever comes up. Take it easy and make that heart pump less.

Perhaps I would use such information from your links, but for the fact that you have posted none of these imaginary links here for me to utilize. Isn't that what I was saying earlier?


Harte

EDIT - Like I said, the link was no good. Here's the new one:
The USA PATRIOT ACT

Harte

[edit on 6/1/2006 by Harte]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   
I know that people such as President Lincoln and even Thomas Jefferson did certain things that have some of the provisions of the Patriot Act. For that I don't succumb even to human weakness. I also know that Thomas Jefferson had alot to do with the writing of the Declaration of Independence, and he still yet owned slaves.

What you are doing here is what others have done. For what you are trying to do, none of this negates that the Patriot Act then is being pushed as a NEW and VITAL law and the Constitution and Geneva Conventions OUTDATED.

You reminding us of the faults and/or failings of even some of our forefathers doesn't prove the Patriot Act NEW, but even otherwise!

That even shows you are somewhat mixed up, forgetting that Bush also claims this is a NEW DAY, and even says that the FISA law prohibiting warrantless wiretaps is as old as 1978.

[edit on 1-6-2006 by tmac100]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by tmac100
What you are doing here is what others have done. For what you are trying to do, none of this negates that the Patriot Act then is being pushed as a NEW and VITAL law and the Constitution and Geneva Conventions OUTDATED.

You reminding us of the faults and/or failings of even some of our forefathers doesn't prove the Patriot Act NEW, but even otherwise!

That even shows you are somewhat mixed up, forgetting that Bush also claims this is a NEW DAY, and even says that the FISA law prohibiting warrantless wiretaps is as old as 1978.

tmac100,
You are extremely unclear with these statements. Who here has brought up our "forefathers"?

The FISA law, as written, has been overtaken by technology since it was enacted. There's no question about that. There is, however, a good argument to be made about whether this fact justifies ignoring the FISA law itself.

You have made a series of statements in these posts. You have provided no evidence to back up your series of statements. Why should I believe you? Tell me, please.

I gave you a new link to the Patriot act. I suggest you go look at it, along with the laws it alters, and come back and tell me how my constitutional rights are being violated. You might want to load up a copy of the Constitution for your research as well.

I don't think you'll find anything at all.

Harte



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   
You should believe me because I back up my statements and make the Bush propaganda team unable to sleep!

Please prove your points another way than by saying that others don't. I haven't seen you back up your statements nor address the questions that are given to you. See? We're even!

We still have seen the Patriot Act before in the Inquisitions, also in the practices of the Communists and Nazis.

1. That's why I wouldn't make a president a king who fails to protect us? And who is proud enough to show pictures of his failure at 911 for his re-election campaign?

2. That's why I would stage an independent investigation of 911 right away after the tragedy? Remember? I think differently from you guys.

3. I would not empower a president who has had family ties to the Bin Ladens to be able to destroy anyone based on accusation of having ties to terrorists.

All of the three points above IS YOUR WISDOM, and not those of Americans.

Why do you guys insist that I and everyone else must see things the way you see it? None of you can deal with your mental ability in just those three points! I remind you to just even deal with those points and you make me to know it is not that you are stupid why you routinely ignore them.

[edit on 1-6-2006 by tmac100]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by tmac100
You should believe me because I back up my statements and make the Bush propaganda team unable to sleep!

Please prove your points another way than by saying that others don't. I haven't seen you back up your statements nor address the questions that are given to you. See? We're even!


Which of "my points" are you referring to? The only point I've made is that you're making claims without giving me any reason at all to believe that what you are saying might be true.

Who has asked me questions I haven't answered?


Originally posted by tmac1001. That's why I wouldn't make a president a king who fails to protect us? And who is proud enough to show pictures of his failure at 911 for his re-election campaign?

2. That's why I would stage an independent investigation of 911 right away after the tragedy? Remember? I think differently from you guys.

3. I would not empower a president who has had family ties to the Bin Ladens to be able to destroy anyone based on accusation of having ties to terrorists.

All of the three points above IS YOUR WISDOM, and not those of Americans.

Hmmmm. I'm convinced you have me confused with somebody else. What has the above short list have to do with me?


Originally posted by tmac100Why do you guys insist that I and everyone else must see things the way you see it? None of you can deal with your mental ability in just those three points! I remind you to just even deal with those points and you make me to know it is not that you are stupid why you routinely ignore them.

Until today, I'd never read a single one of your posts. I have "insisted" nothing here. I'm in no way interested in how you "see things," beyond trying to see them the way you do. But you'll not convince me of anything by making unsubstantiated claims. Perhaps you are too lazy to provide these links you claim to have provided somewhere at this site, in some thread I've never read. You are the one making claims here, why should I search through all of ATS to find some links you put in some other thread that may or may not support what you've posted in this one? See, I'm lazy too!

No, unless you wish to answer my questions, it is apparent to me that you're just ranting and you are not really interested in informed discussion. BTW, the link to a story about Gonzales saying the Geneva Conventions are outdated I could pull out of google in a heartbeat. I've seen that story. Why can't you provide anything about the Constitution being outdated? Why can't you go look at the USAPATRIOT Act and point at something that is a violation of Constitutionally guaranteed liberties? Why is it you can't look at the USAPATRIOT Act and point out at least a few similarities between it and the Inquisition? Instead of doing these things, you lash out at anyone wishing to discuss the matter, that is, if they aren't patting you on the back or serving in some otherwise cheerleading fashion.

Harte






top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution