Congress are going to pass a bill today, that will change your world

page: 13
0
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Astygia, I don't know where your quote about sidsteping constitutional gaurantees comes from, but it isn't in the Military Commissions Act and therefore not subject to my interpretation on the Act. Is this your statement, or the statement of another's opinion?


That's my statement. Sadly, constitutional scholars and congressmen are saying the same thing.


A word regarding retro-active immunity, it's the same as grandfathering. When any, and I mean ANY new law is passed that defines crimes and possible punishments, the new law always states that activities occuring before the enactment of the law will not be punishable under the law.


Right. But how many new laws specifically single out the executive branch?



Soylent Communications? Daily Rotten? Electronic Frotier Foundation? Please, do not try to pass off a manufactured document that alleges to summarize a Draft US government document, that no one here has ever seen, as legitimate. Take note of how the authors formatted the document to fool people into thinking it was an official library of Congress document. When you have not seen the actual document, how can you trust the "transcribers" to faithfully convey the information.


This memo was leaked to the Center for Public Integrity in early 2003, from there it's gone everywhere. I'm guessing that you don't actually research anything outside of finding ways to "win" in a thread. If you googled for a few minutes before coming up with a witty reply, you'd know this for yourself. This was reported by several reputable sources, such as CNN, Washington Post, etc.



Your link goes to the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2004. A quick review indicates its basically funding legislation. I see nothing sinister in it. And I'm sorry, no matter what it said, I'd argue that you couldn't say it included most of the provisions of the "Patriot Act II" since as I stated above, who knows what was in Patriot Act II?
If you want to discuss HR2417 we should start a new thread.


A quick review of your posts indicates that you don't accept reality.



One more thing. You pointing out that HR 2417 was signed the day Saddam was captured seems to indicate you think the Admin. tried to slip it by. Please remember it was debated and voted on in both houses of congress well before the Pres signed it. Nothing secretive here IMO.


Actually, I pointed that out so you'd have a date to check by. But in your opinion, we don't need habeus corpus either.




posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Astygia, I don't know where your quote about sidsteping constitutional gaurantees comes from, but it isn't in the Military Commissions Act and therefore not subject to my interpretation on the Act. Is this your statement, or the statement of another's opinion?


That's my statement. Sadly, constitutional scholars and congressmen are saying the same thing.


Then your original statement questioning my interpretation is ridiculous. I made it clear I was interpreting the law not your opinion.





Soylent Communications? Daily Rotten? Electronic Frotier Foundation? Please, do not try to pass off a manufactured document that alleges to summarize a Draft US government document, that no one here has ever seen, as legitimate. Take note of how the authors formatted the document to fool people into thinking it was an official library of Congress document. When you have not seen the actual document, how can you trust the "transcribers" to faithfully convey the information.


This memo was leaked to the Center for Public Integrity in early 2003, from there it's gone everywhere. I'm guessing that you don't actually research anything outside of finding ways to "win" in a thread. If you googled for a few minutes before coming up with a witty reply, you'd know this for yourself. This was reported by several reputable sources, such as CNN, Washington Post, etc.


I'm not saying the Draft Memo wasnt leaked or didn't exist. I'm saying I've never seen it. Show it to me. Don't show me a trancribed summary of it.




Your link goes to the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2004. A quick review indicates its basically funding legislation. I see nothing sinister in it. And I'm sorry, no matter what it said, I'd argue that you couldn't say it included most of the provisions of the "Patriot Act II" since as I stated above, who knows what was in Patriot Act II?
If you want to discuss HR2417 we should start a new thread.


A quick review of your posts indicates that you don't accept reality.


Insulting and immature. I've treated you with respect, I deserve the same.



One more thing. You pointing out that HR 2417 was signed the day Saddam was captured seems to indicate you think the Admin. tried to slip it by. Please remember it was debated and voted on in both houses of congress well before the Pres signed it. Nothing secretive here IMO.


Actually, I pointed that out so you'd have a date to check by. But in your opinion, we don't need habeus corpus either.


I doubt that, since the Tinwiki article about The Patriot Act that you wrote and/or contributed to, has an entire section discussing the irregularity of signing this legislation on the Saturday when Saddam was captured.

Up until know I was interested in your posts, But in your last response you've shown me you aren't interested in thoughful debate. You've joined Vitchilo on my unofficial ignore list.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   
my last post on this thread...really

Apologies to Astygia - I found this link to an actual scanned image of the Draft PA II
summary.

Confidential Draft 1/9/03



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Then your original statement questioning my interpretation is ridiculous. I made it clear I was interpreting the law not your opinion.


To be completely fair, it's not your or my interpretation that counts; constitutional scholars and congressmen have interpreted it for us. And that's what they're saying.


Insulting and immature. I've treated you with respect, I deserve the same.


You're right, and I apologize for being rude. Keep in mind that your or my "quick review" is meaningless; quickly reviewing such things before signing them into law are how the less noble provisions have stayed within these laws.

This isn't a "debate" where it's possible that you're wrong or that I'm wrong; this is a congressional fact, outlined by actual scholars, senators and congressmen, and it is an outrage. I fail to see how you don't understand this.



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 10:14 PM
link   
This legislation is clearly designed to give the Bush Regime radical tyrannical powers. Meditate upon the fact that this cabal's mission has been to systematically bring down the super-power you knew as the United States of America, and my what a fine job they have done.

Your Administration is possesed by Satanic energies, and are being used to foment a global fascist state upon the peoples of the world in order to completely hault our spiritual evolution, specifically before 2012 when we are set to take an extra-ordinary leap in evolution.

You do not think that your government hierarchy can be controlled by Satanic energies? You do not think that your government is working towards your enslavement? This plan was written up long before any of us were born. Believe it!

If you are to know anything, know this: There is much much information that we are simply not supposed to know about. Information that would set us free, and bring about the downfall of the status quo if ever received by the masses. My job is to bring the masses that knowledge.

Research. Ask yourself this question, dear ones, why is this legislation titled "HR 6166? 6166? WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU?

Of course, if they had labeled it the actual 666, that would be too obvious. Do not be fooled by the Evil ones trickery. You are more intelligent than that!

AND, of course, when Pluto aligns with the Central Sun in 2007, we will see the exposure of all evil and corruption. So be it.

Namaste

[edit on 21-10-2006 by LightWorker13]



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   
you may have heard about folic acid supplementation in the US, which was started in 1996, according to this paper.

Now, the same people banned vegemite because it containes folic acid ...

see
www.abovetopsecret.com...



I think this clearly shows they could easily ban, let's say potatoes because they contain 'too much' potassium, where are the checks and balances for this kind of arbitrary power?

These people could do anything and they are not the only ones, this meedling needs to stop, there is no end in sight , the line must be drawn, the sooner the better.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia

You're right, and I apologize for being rude.


Accepted.


Keep in mind that your or my "quick review" is meaningless; quickly reviewing such things before signing them into law are how the less noble provisions have stayed within these laws.


Agreed. I've taken your advice read the complete text of HR 2417 and followed all cross references to the NSA of 1947, The Intel Auth Act of 2003, and the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978. I can't find anything alarming. I'm not challenging you, but asking for your help understanding this issue. What are the dangerous provisions in this legislation in your opinion?


This isn't a "debate" where it's possible that you're wrong or that I'm wrong; this is a congressional fact, outlined by actual scholars, senators and congressmen, and it is an outrage. I fail to see how you don't understand this.


Respectfully disagree. This forum is nothing BUT a place to present information, debate issues, and exchange ideas. You think these laws are sinister and will be mis-used. Maybe you're right.

I think they could be mis-used, but I have faith that the humanity of the vast majority of Americans who comprise our government will not allow them to be mis-used. Maybe I'm right.

Many posters here like to compare our situation to how Hitler could coerce a nation to adopt and accept his perverse views and policies in the name of German security and to exact revenge for "unfair" treatment after WWI. Our citizens, who make up the government, intel agencies, and armed forces have the historical lesson of Germany to remind them of what can happen to a nation if laws are abused. I think this will prevent any person or small group of people from perpetrating the kind of totalitarianism that many here are worried about.

Lastly, maybe the reason you cant see my point of view, or in your words "How I can't understand this" is because we are a generation apart and have different life experiences that help form our personal opinions.

That said, you may be right and I may be wrong. I hope that is not the case.





[edit on 10/23/2006 by darkbluesky]



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   
One of the best explanations yet of what HR 6166 means to all of us Americans.



Anyone who hoped that U.S. military detention of Americans accused of terrorism expired with the transfer of American citizen Jose Padilla from military custody to Justice Department custody have seen their hopes dashed by the Military Commissions Act that the president signed into law yesterday. Although the act limits to foreign citizens the use of military tribunals and the denial of habeas corpus, any person, including American citizens, can still be labeled and treated as an “unlawful enemy combatant” in the war on terrorism.

What does that mean for the American people? It means the same thing it did for Jose Padilla. You’ll recall that Padilla was arrested in Chicago for terrorism and transferred to military custody, where, according to Padilla, he was tortured and involuntarily injected with drugs.

www.fff.org...



posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 03:46 AM
link   
ok old thread i know but still,

@lonegunman; i cant say i agree with all of your views on things but you made a statement earlier in this thread that you'd rather see 100 guilty men go free than see 1 innocent man go to jail. hats off man, i cant agree more. much respect.

next, in regards to this law. seems that military members get pardons for their crimes as well. i wonder if those are specific to anything in particular or do i get off the hook for my unpaid speeding tickets from when i was in the army?

lastly, i still cant see this as yet another step towards a "police state" for the same reasons i outlined here www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Well, it's been over a month since Congress stripped us of our rights of:

being told what crime we are being charged with,
being confronted by our accuser,
getting a fair a speedy trial by a jury of our peers, and
being afforded legal represenation.

Lets hear from some folks (or rather, friends, family or acquaintances of folks) who have been affected by this travesty.

Sorry for the sarcastic tone, maybe it hasnt been long enough. I will keep this thread on my subscription list as long as it takes to hear about every case of injustice resulting from the Military Commissions Act. I see Janet Reno is fighting to have the Act repealed or ammended. It will be interesting to see where this goes.



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   


Lets hear from some folks (or rather, friends, family or acquaintances of folks) who have been affected by this travesty.


Well... here's one...



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Why should a non-US citizen, who has never even entered the United States, get the rights/protection afforded to US citizens by the US constitution?

Why should the US taxpayer have to pay for a non-US citizens legal bills?

Why should a non-US citizen, captured in a war, be tried in a US domestic court?



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Why should a non-US citizen, who has never even entered the United States, get the rights/protection afforded to US citizens by the US constitution?

Why should the US taxpayer have to pay for a non-US citizens legal bills?

Why should a non-US citizen, captured in a war, be tried in a US domestic court?

Because of morals? And that the constitution allow those rights not only to US citizens but everyone on the US territory.



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Seven month itch......

Lets hear your stories of illegal detention of US citizens......tanks on the streets.....martial law......suspension of habeus corpus.......etc.....

Wait a minute...you know...I haven't seen Cindy Sheehan in a while! What do you think they did with her?





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join