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.

 

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

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Some of you people talk like Bush is the first president to implement a bill that would affect American citizens dealing with terrorism. Have you guys heard of the Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Act of 1995?
Under Bill Clinton.




posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   

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.


Yeah but alien unlawful enemy combattants can't breach allegiance or duty, they don't have allegiance or duty to the US, they are not citizens nor from the US... So why using the words allegiance and duty? It's double-thinking at his best, and I'm sure it's aimed at US citizens.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by etshrtslr

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.


It is only Rep Kucinich's opinion that the bill casts a wide net. I contend the applicability clause of the Act clearly defines whom the Act applies to.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Its been fun folks but I have a 1600 meeting. My closing statement for today....

When all the could's, if's, maybe's, they's, them's, etc. turn into people actually being "dissappeared", I'll join the cause!

So far it seems like alarmism to me.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 02:49 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.



Do you know what unlawful alien enemy combatant means?..... It is not the same as American citizen and or American resident....



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   


It is only Rep Kucinich's opinion that the bill casts a wide net. I contend the applicability clause of the Act clearly defines whom the Act applies to.


Thats the whole point.....yours is only an opinion and so is mine.....but all you need is someone in the justice dept with an opinion that says I think I'll charge this guy as an enemy combatant and the law is vauge enough to allow it to happen.

Additionally, (and I dont have any links as of yet) there are and will be more legal analysis of this law and it will show conclusively that this law allows for american citizens to be charged as enemy combatants with the resulting loss of constitutional rights.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Okay, this is my thought on the matter for the record. I mulled it over for a couple of hours before posting. those of you who have seen my posts before know that I tned to be more conservative than a lot posters around here.

DGTempe, I don't think that President Bush will extend his term.

Next up, in regard to these specific issues. The idea of the Geneva Convention is to set up some rules for war in order to make it more humane. There is an intrinsic level of nonsense to that whole concept, but I will skip that for the moment.

I personally don't feel that these "unlawful alien enemy combatants" should be covered under the Geneva Convention. They aren't (typically) under the control of a State that is a signatory of the Geneva Convention. The Convention was never designed to deal with this kind of warfare. It is like requiring a third party to undertake responsibilities and recieve rights that they had no part in selecting, or obeying.

That being said, I feel that we should have our own moral guidelines for dealing with this kind of enemy that is above and beyond this. A defining set of guidelines that is free from rash action and blind hate.

Don't get me wrong, I still support what the President is doing in regards to carrying on a war against terrorism. I am not so naive or foolish as to think that any way, but ESPECIALLY this kind of war can be prosecuted without the loss of life, both combatant and noncombatant. I think it needs to be done dispassionately and it needs to be done properly.

I think it is necessary to understand that wars are bloody. I think if we had been less concerned with world opinion in regards to some of the areas we were facing and made hard, dispassionate decisions there would have been a higher initial bodycount but lower continuing struggle.

I know that this thread (and my post) have gotten long enough that no one will probably read this, but there it is. I've said it.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Some of you people talk like Bush is the first president to implement a bill that would affect American citizens dealing with terrorism. Have you guys heard of the Omnibus Counter-Terrorism Act of 1995?
Under Bill Clinton.


10years ago though, we werent embroiled in another country.. branding anyone whom didnt like us a terrorist.

Technically, we are the terrorists..
Yet we chose to brand anyone who feels this way a enemy combatant

My query is,

Should the repubs lose the congress in november..
Would this bill of passed?

Surely not, no sane democrat would allow this law to pass.

So what does it mean when the government puts through a bill like this, knowing full well if he waited any longer... for another man to make the decision.. it wouldnt of passed?

It means he knows himself its unlawful bill, and that he will need to use his cronnies to pass it through before they dont have the power any more.

Party Yes No Not Voting
Democratic 12 32 0
Independent 0 1 0
Republican 53 1 1
Total 65 34 1

Id be damn interested to talk to that single repbulican that voted NO!
Wonder if we'll hear baout him resigning soon, cant go against your parties agender can you?

[edit on 17-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Surely not, no sane democrat would allow this law to pass.



Thats funny, since Bill Clinton as a Democrat and a President introduced the Omnibus Act that is so similar to the Patriot Act in which he hoped it would pass.

[edit on 17-10-2006 by deltaboy]



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Its been fun folks but I have a 1600 meeting. My closing statement for today....

When all the could's, if's, maybe's, they's, them's, etc. turn into people actually being "dissappeared", I'll join the cause!



take a look at www.abovetopsecret.com...

if you consider this genuine you'll have some joining to do re. causes and all.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Surely not, no sane democrat would allow this law to pass.



Thats funny, since Bill Clinton as a Democrat and a President introduced the Omnibus Act that is so similar to the Patriot Act in which he hoped it would pass.

[edit on 17-10-2006 by deltaboy]


Thanks Deltaboy, im reading up on the acts as im typin this.

Thankfully though, Clinton didnt invade another country.... I mean the only terrorists he had were the ones striking the USA.

NOW, we have a whole REGION of terrorists, thanks to this illegial war.
Should Iraq declare us terrorists for what we've done, and implement similiar laws.... well, lawful country pitted against lawful country, where both countries declare the other a terrorist state..

what a situation to be in.

but as I said im reading up on this bill so lemme do some comparisons.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   
You know the Geneva convention allows for terrorist to be shot on sight. Anyone who engages in guerilla tactics and not in uniform sponsored by a state. We are actually watering down the Geneva convention.


[edit on 10/17/2006 by MrMedic]



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop


Party Yes No Not Voting
Democratic 12 32 0
Independent 0 1 0
Republican 53 1 1
Total 65 34 1

Id be damn interested to talk to that single repbulican that voted NO!
Wonder if we'll hear baout him resigning soon, cant go against your parties agender can you?

[edit on 17-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]


I'd say its a safe bet to say Lincoln Chafee - Del was the (R) who cast the no vote



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Here's the bottom line folks: The United States of America is currently being governed by a group of tyrants who're out to solidify their control on the American citizenry by making them subjects OF their laws THEIR(the tyrants) rather than subject to the laws of the citizens of the USA. Alex Jones is right we're currently living in a police state. The Bush Family has a long history of sympathy with fascist, tyrannical regimes ie the Nazi's and the Royal Family of Saud. They're now bringing their brand of tyranny... excuse me of civil governing to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq and expect us to foot the bill. We've seen this before in 1776 and we rebelled against a monarch who was trying to get us to foot the bill for his wars then,too. Down with the Royals! Down with their corporate masters!



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

Thanks Deltaboy, im reading up on the acts as im typin this.

Thankfully though, Clinton didnt invade another country.... I mean the only terrorists he had were the ones striking the USA.


Wouldn't matter this was still about dealing with terrorism. And in anyways hes attacked many countries before that could be considered illegal to many people even though he believes it was the right thing to do.


NOW, we have a whole REGION of terrorists, thanks to this illegial war.
Should Iraq declare us terrorists for what we've done, and implement similiar laws.... well, lawful country pitted against lawful country, where both countries declare the other a terrorist state..


A whole region of terrorists that are attacking their own people and not American citizens. Thats as far as they can go. But then we have a whole region of terrorists around Afghanistan long before we invaded that country as well so it didn't matter. And since terrorists don't like to dress up themselves in uniform because they are afraid of being caught and killed by American soldiers, they should be tried as enemy combatants. Same thing for Osama and his followers. He is no soldier, and he does not represent a state.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I, personally, would like to read the answers to a question by those that fear this bill:

What is it about this bill…with supported facts…that causes any/all concern(s)?


mg



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by missed_gear
I, personally, would like to read the answers to a question by those that fear this bill:

What is it about this bill…with supported facts…that causes any/all concern(s)?


mg


Okay, I fear this bill would harm Osama Bin Laden and his followers if they are caught. They are such nice people.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Originally posted by Agit8dChop


Party Yes No Not Voting
Democratic 12 32 0
Independent 0 1 0
Republican 53 1 1
Total 65 34 1

Id be damn interested to talk to that single repbulican that voted NO!
Wonder if we'll hear baout him resigning soon, cant go against your parties agender can you?

[edit on 17-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]

I'd say its a safe bet to say Lincoln Chafee - Del was the (R) who cast the no vote


Thanks for that,
after reading up on his record, he seems like a level headed republican.
Criticising bush for his stance on the enrivoment.
Agreeing with stem cell research
voting AGAINST bush in 2004
voting against the implementation of the nuclear option
seems the governemnt doesnt mind pressuring those whom disagree with apointments
www.slate.com...

How on earth have we elected a man who cares more for his elite corporate friends, than he does the enviroment and our childerens future.
Every day I wake up at a loss as to how we got in this position.
But back on topic, Im looking throug the act mentioned by deltaboy, and im still yet to find anything where the geneva conventions are thrown out the window for anyone the USA deems an UNLAWFUL enemy combatant.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Would this be the bill Bush signed into law this morning?



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

Party Yes No Not Voting
Democratic 12 32 0
Independent 0 1 0
Republican 53 1 1
Total 65 34 1

Id be damn interested to talk to that single repbulican that voted NO!
Wonder if we'll hear baout him resigning soon, cant go against your parties agender can you?

[edit on 17-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]


I'd be more interested in seeing who the 12 (D) yes voters were. They are all, no doubt, in tight re-election races. Kind of gives you a sense as to where the voting public is on this issue.........don't it?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join