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

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
My mistake that was the patriot act I



SECTION 501 (Expatriation of Terrorists) expands the Bush administration's "enemy combatant" definition to all American citizens who "may" have violated any provision of Section 802 of the first Patriot Act. (Section 802 is the new definition of domestic terrorism, and the definition is "any action that endangers human life that is a violation of any Federal or State law.") Section 501 of the second Patriot Act directly connects to Section 125 of the same act. The Justice Department boldly claims that the incredibly broad Section 802 of the First USA Patriot Act isn't broad enough and that a new, unlimited definition of terrorism is needed.

Under Section 501 a US citizen engaging in lawful activities can be grabbed off the street and thrown into a van never to be seen again. The Justice Department states that they can do this because the person "had inferred from conduct" that they were not a US citizen. Remember Section 802 of the First USA Patriot Act states that any violation of Federal or State law can result in the "enemy combatant" terrorist designation.


Patriot act 2 2003

www.rickieleejones.com...



Marg! - Patriot Act II is NOT Law. Never was. It was a DRAFT that was never voted on. The quote you posted above is Alex Jones's "Thumbnail" sketch of one part of the DRAFT that no one has ever seen! You trying to pass it off as Law is disingenious to say the least!




posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

"Enemy combatant" is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention.

Now tell me how many of the captured prisoners in US secret camps that has been tagged enemy combatants have Geneva convention rights.


All but approximately 450 of them.


Actually all the prisoners US is taking are called Unlawful combatants.


Not true.


BTW with the new bill signed today The president give himself the rights to chose punishment for the detainees.


Again, not true. The law gives the administration of the current government the right to try the various prisoners for offences committed and the tribunals (if used) the right to set appropriate punishments, up to and including death. The SECDEF has the right to review & commute sentences, etc., but not the right to increase punishment.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by etshrtslr



Wrong again - show me the statute that authorizes the Government to charge US citizens as enemy combatants and then strip them of their Constitutional rights....Show me the Statute.


Its not about authorization.....its about the fact the govt can accuse someone of commiting any type of crime call it terrorism then deem the accused any enemy combatant....its at this point rights are lost.....of course there is not going to be explicit language in the statue saying all americans can be charged as enemy combatants.....you have to be deemed a terrorist first and they can do that by labeling any crime terrorism.


Please see my previous post - Marg is citing Patriot Act II which in not law.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Well frankly they might have "elections" but as others have said: it will be a mock election. Anyone who goes in will do the exact same things as have been done and nothing will change, it will get worse.
Blokes and Sheilas (men and women) we are looking at a system that has failed the people, they are modeling it to their likelyness which is a perverted one and they are going to start a full scale gulag. They just lack one thing: the right timing, they need something to happen so they can do it more "officialy and legaly" thus keeping the rednecks behind them. Dont worry, you and I wont be the first to go, it will be the leaders of organizations that oppose them, they are the greatest threat.


Here is what can be said without question: The forefathers are rolling in their grave.

Cant wait for the firing squads, that will spice things up a bit around here, give a really good slap in the face to those who think peace is always the way when its not always the best option.
Lets all get out the song from star wars: Imperial March and play it after the gulag starts, it will be so timely. Start stocking up on guns, ammo, rations (MRE, freeze dried or dehydrated) and get yourself everything you need to hold out in event of a nuclear war (more for the gulag than a nuclear war) make sure to stock up on digital camo! Make sure you blend in when your running through the forest with attack dogs chasing you! Also dont forget some grenades, one grenade will make those dogs back off a good bit not to mention make the chasers stop cold thinking they were led into a trap. Get yourself a darn good map too, one with complete terrain (all the hills and such so you know where cliffs and mountains are) dont forget some good hiking boots too!

Death before dishonor!



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   


Please see my previous post - Marg is citing Patriot Act II which in not law.


I did read your post.....Please read my post....If an american citizen is accused of commiting an act of terrorism the accused can then be deemed any enemy combatant with the resulting loss of constitutional protection.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vekar
Anyone who goes in will do the exact same things as have been done and nothing will change, it will get worse.


Right on. After all, you're a sucker if you thing anything would be different had Kerry been put into office, or some 'new guy' is going to get elected and make everything all better. The system put in place by the "Conglomerate of Corruption" will soon collapse under it's own weight. All we can do is be prepared to sieze power back when it happens, and again make our forefathers proud.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by etshrtslr



Please see my previous post - Marg is citing Patriot Act II which in not law.


I did read your post.....Please read my post....If an american citizen is accused of commiting an act of terrorism the accused can then be deemed any enemy combatant with the resulting loss of constitutional protection.


I dont know how else to say you are incorrect.

What is the source of the information contained in your statement above?



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
no rush etshrtslr - you can u2u it to me when you find it.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   


I dont know how else to say you are incorrect.



José Padilla (also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir) (born October 18, 1970) is a U.S. citizen of Puerto Rican descent accused of being a terrorist by the United States government. He was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002, and remains in detention in a military prison. For the first three years of his detention he was held without charge; he is now charged with "conspiracy to murder, kidnap, and maim people overseas."



The U.S. administration has in the past described him as an illegal enemy combatant, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to the normal protection of US law, nor protection under the Geneva Convention.
en.wikipedia.org...

I dont know how I can be wrong its happened already.....They accuse you of terrorism then deem you any enemy combatant and your constitutional rights are lost.

[edit on 17-10-2006 by etshrtslr]



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by etshrtslr


I dont know how else to say you are incorrect.



José Padilla (also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir) (born October 18, 1970) is a U.S. citizen of Puerto Rican descent accused of being a terrorist by the United States government. He was arrested in Chicago on May 8, 2002, and remains in detention in a military prison. For the first three years of his detention he was held without charge; he is now charged with "conspiracy to murder, kidnap, and maim people overseas."



The U.S. administration has in the past described him as an illegal enemy combatant, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to the normal protection of US law, nor protection under the Geneva Convention.
en.wikipedia.org...

I dont know how I can be wrong its happened already.....They accuse you of terrorism then deem you any enemy combatant and your constitutional rights are lost.

[edit on 17-10-2006 by etshrtslr]


The supreme court ruled on this, that is why Mr. Padilla was charged and is now in the Legal system with full constitutional protection.


DCP

posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   
If an american citizen is accused of commiting an act of terrorism against their own country loosing their constitutional protection should not be their main problem. United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381, defines treason and the penalty is DEATH. I would say any american traitors would prefer whatever law Bush just signed compared to death.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   
I appologize for my posts I actually was so envolved in it that I missed the whole Patriot act 2 point.

Yes it was a draft and yes it was never enacted, for that I made a mistake.

However my point stand and the fact that even when the provisions of the Patriot Act 2 were never enacted as a whole.

Parts of it has been modified and pass with other bills.

This site offers a time line of the Patriot act since its enactment back in 2001.

Thanks for pointing to my mistake

www.checksbalances.org...



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Sorry if some of my posts were un-neccessarily abrasive. I tend to get over-reved on this topic.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Here's an example of how an american citizen who just did a road rage act is now accused as a terrorist... Source

A man who allegedly shot a crossbow at a motorist after being on the receiving end of an obscene gesture has been charged with committing a terroristic act.


Some quotes from the Military Comission Act...


Subsection 4(b) (26) of section 950v. of HR 6166 - Crimes triable by military commissions - includes the following definition.

"Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct."


So anyone who breach allegiance (supporting Bush) or duty (draft) is a terrorist... so it doesn't appply to US citizens? Yeah right.

Also there's an article about North Korea, the OPLAN 5027 and the draft... You could be interested in reading it...



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 02:23 PM
link   


The supreme court ruled on this


Can you show me where the supreme court ever ruled on this or even heard the case?



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Sorry if some of my posts were un-neccessarily abrasive. I tend to get over-reved on this topic.


No at all, I made a mistake and you brought up the fact of that mistake and for that I am grateful to you.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Here's an example of how an american citizen who just did a road rage act is now accused as a terrorist... Source

A man who allegedly shot a crossbow at a motorist after being on the receiving end of an obscene gesture has been charged with committing a terroristic act.


Some quotes from the Military Comission Act...


Subsection 4(b) (26) of section 950v. of HR 6166 - Crimes triable by military commissions - includes the following definition.

"Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct."


So anyone who breach allegiance (supporting Bush) or duty (draft) is a terrorist... so it doesn't appply to US citizens? Yeah right.

Also there's an article about North Korea, the OPLAN 5027 and the draft... You could be interested in reading it...



Not quite - you need to read the first section of the Act - Definitions, Applicability, Purpose etc. The entire Act is Applicable only to "Alien Unlawful Enemy Comabatants" see Subchapter 1, section 948b.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
For those who still think there will be an election, there might be a mock one, but that's all.
This man will find the way to stay in power, which is exactly why he's coming up with all this. He's not going anywhere.

For those of you who live under the delussion that all will be fine, i got news for you. It wont.


He cannot stay in power, it's an ammendment that the Supreme Court will NOT repeal, especially not for him.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by etshrtslr



The supreme court ruled on this


Can you show me where the supreme court ever ruled on this or even heard the case?


Padilla vs. Rumsfeld - US Supreme Court Ruling

Go to page 9.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Dennis Kucinich speaking from the Floor of the House



"The second point: H.R. 6166 and S. 3930 cast a wide net, in defining unlawful enemy combatants, that would include any American supporter of a national liberation movement which is seeking to overthrow a US Government-supported despot.


"For instance, with such a loose definition, the thousands of Americans, many of whom are church clergy, who provided support to the armed and unarmed opposition to the deposed dictatorships of El Salvador and Nicaragua, could have been designated as unlawful enemycombatants.

www.kucinich.us...

So you can see from this the new law makes it possible for an American citizen to be deemed an enemy combatant and deprived of constitutional rights.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join