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: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Actually, I never disrespected the German people. I said Hitler lied to them to make them think they were attacked to inspire the army to fight. But it quickly should've become apparent to them that they were in the wrong, when they decided to attack Britain and march into Russia. I said I just forgot WHAT IT WAS that Hitler used to lie to the German people.

And yes, Bush did not lie. Furthermore, Bush said after 9/11 that he was going to root out all terrorists around the world and all nations that supported them. Saddam supported them (al-Zarqawi was even treated in a Baghdad hospital some years before).

Abu Ghraib had nothing to do with being an excuse to attack the Middle East. It was actually being kept secret rom the Arab world for said reasons while the government was doing the investigation. The MEDIA (again) found out about it and reported it to enrage the Arab community. They did this again later, with Newsweek going by a rumor to say that U.S. soldiers were using the Quran for toilet paper, which led to people getting killed, when it wasn't even true.

And no, the U.S. doesn't attack other countries for money and power. Terrorists, however, have been attacking this nation since the 1970s. We are fighting to kill the terrorists.




posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   
ahh I love it.
Im about to leave the office for the day, but ill debate this with u later on.

But I like you thinking..

"It wasnt OUR FAULT there were no WMD's.. we never even MENTIONED them.. the MEDIA made u THINK we were going in there for WMD's.. We knew the truth all along.. the media tricked you "- US Government

sorry mate.. doesnt work.

We went in there for economic benefit towards the presidents friends corporate ambitions. Deal with it.

Any way you want to sugar coat the issue is regardless.

but this is a debate for another thread



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   
One question but WheelsRcool

If this was soley about terrrorists, how come we didnt squash the fly that is Osama....... being he was the one whom managed to attack us in such amazing fashion?
I mean if the US govenrmnet DIDNT go in to get WMD's... then there must not of been a threat of alqaeda USING wmd's...

even so, it doesnt explain why we didnt focus soley on the TRUE terrorists, before we went on secondary missions?



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
One question but WheelsRcool

If this was soley about terrrorists, how come we didnt squash the fly that is Osama....... being he was the one whom managed to attack us in such amazing fashion?
I mean if the US govenrmnet DIDNT go in to get WMD's... then there must not of been a threat of alqaeda USING wmd's...

even so, it doesnt explain why we didnt focus soley on the TRUE terrorists, before we went on secondary missions?


Agit8dChop, the U.S. did go in for WMDs, just WMDs weren't the ONLY reason for going in. It was believed that if Saddam was developing WMDs, he could start up a whole lot of crap in the Middle East. Although it now seems that Saddam didn't have a huge WMD program, he did thumb his nose at the world community and he never made it clear as to whether or not he really had them. It turns out he DID have them, but in the form of chemical weapons mostly, not big nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, he had them and he lied about it.

The U.S. wanted to go after Osama bin Laden after the 1992 WTC bombings. Terrorist acts against the U.S. had been going on since the 1970s, from the Iranian kidnappings to the bombing of U.S. Marine Corps barracks, etc...to the 1992 WTC bombings. President Clinton refused to go after Osama bin Laden, and he pretty much ignored the entire threat of terrorism throughout the 1990s, including the terrorist acts that occurred against the U.S. during the 1990s, along with allowing the intelligence agencies of the U.S. to fall into disarray and cutting back enormous amounts of $$$ on military funding.

When Bush became President, he announced that he wanted to start going after the terrorists to stop them from killing American soldiers and citizens around the world left and right, but then suddenly 9/11 hit and all of America got the big wake-up call. Unsurprisingly, back in 1992 I think it was, one of the main terrorist leaders said he was going to fly planes into the WTC, but everyone thought that was just talk).

Now Osama bin Laden is most likely dead now. There hasn't been a video of him for over four years now. Recently there was a voice recording of what was supposedly him giving some inspirational speech to the Arab world, but it is more believed that the terrorists are just trying to keep morale up amongst the terrorists to keep them from believing their leader is dead.

But considering there has been no Osama footage for years now, many are beginning to believe he bit the dust at some point and the U.S. just can't officially confirm it.

However, he could be hiding, no one knows for sure.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   
I don't believe that there's still people who believe the crap about osama carrying 9/11, supporting the Iraq war and supporting Bush. This is just insane.

Those guy are bringing North American Union, putting the US into immense debt, suppressing internet, suppressing the constitution, legalising torture, arming North Korea, arming Pakistan, arming Israël, stealing elections, ect... Their crime list is endless... FACE IT.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   
I never thought our county could be divided and conquered so easily. Why so many cannot see in shades of grey and color too. We are not left vs. right. We are not the defenders of Isreal (who has got us in this mess). We are America the country of humanitarinsim, the country that you knew you were free, as long as you harmed none. We dont invade other countries and do away with the Geneva convention. We are supposed to fight that ideal.

Who are you people that cannot see past the extreme right? Are you not more flexible in yourthinking that that? Can you not tell the difference bewtween right and wrong, not just your political agenda? How did some of you get so brainwashed, is it in the water you are drinking?

We have invaded two countries, and dont tell me its because of 911!! You think I didnt spend too much of my life grieving over the 343 brothers that were lost. I remember when that lying Bush stood there with that FDNY battallion chief with his arm around him and said "I hear you, and soon those people that knocked those buildings down wil be hearing from you" I jumped out of my chair and screamed YEAH! I was all there ready for blood, because I knew thos men went in to do a search and rescue and were killed because they were sure those building wouldnt collapse.

Well Bush should not have even had the right to touch that Firefighter let alone have his arm round him. Everything this administration has done since 911 proves they had a hand in 911. You dont use somethnig as horrible as that horribe day to make a power grab, unless you wer behind it in the first place.

I read a parable here the other day, I cant remember who the poster was. Here it is:




Two women were whaching a shepherd driving a flock of sheep accross a bridge. He was beating the flock and screaming at them instilling fear in them to get them to do what he wanted.

One of the women walked up to him and said, "what kind of shepherd are you scaring those sheep like that?

He turned to her and said, "I am not their shepherd, I am the butcher!"


We are being misled by the butcher and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Edit to say, sorry for all the mistakes, I type with just two fingers.


[edit on 17-10-2006 by LoneGunMan]



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Yeah, and with those sheep, how much you want to bet the butcher was molesting them? Ok, I know bad republican joke but come on he set it up perfectly!

Well, now that anyone who votes democrat, or green, or libertarian can be arrested and tortured with out a lawyer or trial what makes us better then what Saddam did to the people who opposed him?



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Here is today's rendition by Keith Olberman on MSNBC.

10/17/06 - Goodbye Habeus Corpus

According to Jonathan Turley, Law Professor at George Washington University, "anyone" in America can be deemed an enemy combatant by Pres. Bush or someone that he appoints to a certain tribunal.

Not good, people!!!




[edit on 10/17/2006 by Infoholic]



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   

According to Jonathan Turley, Law Professor at George Washington University, "anyone" in America can be deemed an enemy combatant by Pres. Bush or someone that he appoints to a certain tribunal.


Not just according to Jonathan Turley but according to everyone who read the law and understand it.

This is a day against democracy, against the republics, against the constitution, against our founderfathers, against everybody who died in WW1, WW2, Iraq and countless revolutions. This is one of the worst day of the man history. This is a day against humanity. Those bastards in the white house need to go to jail and executed for everything they did. And i'll fight with all my heart and soul for that to happen, to protect my country, my family and my rights.


[edit on 17-10-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 12:06 AM
link   
You're right Bush isn't planning on going anywhere! This is going to be an interesting 2 years from Nov 06 to Nov 08 to see what happens...unless people rise up against it all before then (keeping my fingers crossed on that)



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 01:38 AM
link   
I hope that whoever replaces this President in two years does his/her best to undo the damage this one has done to the American name. This is really sad in my opinion what we've lowered ourselves to.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 02:31 AM
link   
From reading the law in the LOC, it seems that Habeus Corpus is only omitted in regards to aliens. Not saying that's okay, because it isn't. But it appears that if I were deemed an enemy combatant and arrested for posting this, I would still have my 48 hours/HC release as a US citizen.

The meat of this isn't so much in the HC omission, it is in the broad definition of what constitutes an enemy combatant. Unless I'm wrong, which is possible, Turley apparently didn't catch this part. He said the president is the only one who can declare someone an enemy combatant; under section 948d paragraph c, HR6166, the Secretary of Defense is also authorized to do so.

Further, section 948h HR6166, allows military commission to be convened by the Secretary of Defense or any official of the United States designated as such. That basically means that the SoD can "deputize" others to hold military tribunals.

Section 941L paragraph A states that court reporters may or may not be present if the Secretary of Defense doesn't want them there. Evidence? Who needs it, right? Not like it was needed to get you to court anyway, why is it necessary to present to a jury?

In reading through the document, near the end of many sections there's an area where several previous parts are "replaced" with new parts. This isn't nefarious in itself, this is pretty common in legal docs, but the replacements redefine some pretty broad things that seem underhanded to me, but again I'm no legal expert so I'll leave it to you to do so.

Okay, here's the confusing part, regarding torture. The areas in this matter are highly confusing in their wording, and again while that's usually the norm in legal documents, the wording in it forms an interesting loophole. I'm gonna give it my best shot in normal speak, if any of you interpret this document differently please post it here, here goes.

For the sake of finding a simple example, let's say I fart in your living room and it causes you anguish. If you report me to the law and they decide that I am of interest, they cannot torture me for farting. BUT (farting example aside, this is serious), someone who knows me can be detained and interrogated about me, and because I by definition tortured someone (my uncontrollable flatulence caused you anguish), the person they picked up and questioned about me, can be tortured.

Now, what is torture? Well, injuries sustained during interrogation are acceptable as long as they are "incidental injuries sustained through acceptable interrogation methods". Incidental.

Along with all the other loopholes, this basically creates a vortex of circular reasoning in which any and all actions can be explained away and legalized in reference to this document.

Further, and most telling, I'm completely MoFoing serious here because this just hit me like eight seconds ago.

Read this. THIS LAW PARDONS THE PRESIDENT AND ANYONE IN HIS ADMINISTRATION FOR ANY CRIMES ON, BEFORE, OR RELATING TO HIS PRESIDENCY. Read it again. And again.

Am I saying the president shot missiles at the WTC? No. Please let's not get into that, but please please also realize the importance of this. If there is nothing to hide, why is he pardoning his entire administration in advance for anything during its administration?

I am apalled at this. If our president isn't doing anything wrong, why do they feel the need to pardon themselves in advance.

This throws 9/11, among many many many other things, into a new and highly disturbing light.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Posted by WheelsRCool
Furhtermore, yoru argument is ridiculous. Fallujah a horror!? Fallujah is being studied by military academies the world over because it is pretty much the first major battle in history in which a foreign army went fought an enemy in a city while actually making an effort NOT to kill the civilians in there, and it very successful at this as well.


Where you get it from? I leave your other lies to the gutter, but this one about Fallujah you gotta answer for... "the first major battle in history in which a foreign army went fought an enemy in a city while actually making an effort NOT to kill the civilians"
I'm baffled. Fullujah was worse than any horror, it was HELL, reduced to crumbles including its historic mosques. An unknown number of the estimated half of its 300.000 inhabitants who didn't get out in time was shot like rabbits - or burned alive by an illegal chemical weapon.
The "unlawful combatants"? eh?

Which "military academies the world over" study Fullujah as stated? I've no doubt it'll be studied, but it would be ...as a way not to do it. ...as what it was, a War Crime.

Please learn history before you talk or post a link as prove.

For you, I'll post a few to support my claim ...that Fallujah was one of the worst Crimes of War seen since WW2. That's why they pass this law - they're don't wanna fry or risk the humiliation of have to answer for their enormities in the Hague.


"I watched them roll over wounded people in the street with tanks," he said. "This happened so many times."

Abu Hammad said he saw people attempt to swim across the Euphrates to escape the siege. "The Americans shot them with rifles from the shore," he said. "Even if some of them were holding a white flag or white clothes over their heads to show they are not fighters, they were all shot…"

Hammad said he had seen elderly women carrying white flags shot by U.S. soldiers. "Even the wounded people were killed. The Americans made announcements for people to come to one mosque if they wanted to leave Fallujah, and even the people who went there carrying white flags were killed."

www.truthout.org...

What makes it a war crime, is the use of white phosphourus as documented in an Italian tv-doc. Watch it, if you have the guts! Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre - A Film by Sigfrido Ranucci
WARNING: contains possibly disturbing footage.
Guess they don't show it on Fox.


Sigfrido Ranucci, who made the documentary for the RAI television channel, said that a US intelligence assessment had characterised WP after the first Gulf War as a "chemical weapon."
[...]
"When Saddam used WP it was a chemical weapon," said Mr. Ranucci, "but when the Americans use it, it's a conventional weapon. The injuries it inflicts, however, are just as terrible however you describe it."

In the television documentary, eyewitnesses inside Fallujah during the bombardment in November last year described the terror and agony suffered by victims of the shells. Two former American soldiers who fought at Fallujah told how they had been ordered to prepare for the use of the weapons. The film [...]show the strange corpses found after the city's destruction, many with their skin apparently melted or caramelised so their features were indistinguishable. Mr. Ranucci said he had seen photographs of "more than 100" of what he described as "anomalous corpses" in the city.

www.truthout.org...

A biologist in Fallujah, Mohamad Tareq, interviewed for the film, says:
"A rain of fire fell on the city, the people struck by this multi-coloured substance started to burn, we found people dead with strange wounds, the bodies burned but the clothes intact."
www.truthout.org...

[edit on 18/10/06 by khunmoon]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic
Here is today's rendition by Keith Olberman on MSNBC.

10/17/06 - Goodbye Habeus Corpus

According to Jonathan Turley, Law Professor at George Washington University, "anyone" in America can be deemed an enemy combatant by Pres. Bush or someone that he appoints to a certain tribunal.

Not good, people!!!




[edit on 10/17/2006 by Infoholic]
You are absolutely correct. I watched the interview and was amazed by all this.
Let me tell you people George W. is our new dictator and he is not leaving office.
Any elections will be to fool the people.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 06:49 AM
link   
my opinion on why we did not finish the hunt for Bin Laden...


all our "leaders" are ADD/ADHD and could not finish the mission before starting another



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astygia

I am apalled at this. If our president isn't doing anything wrong, why do they feel the need to pardon themselves in advance.

This throws 9/11, among many many many other things, into a new and highly disturbing light.



That is the one million dollar question and I agree with you, the pardoning may have more to it that we even think.

And I still stand by my previous opinion that we American citizens will be vulnerable under this new bill just like any other foreign or alien person caught under the definition of Enemy combatant and then Unlawful enemy combatant.

Is just a matter of interpretation.

The problem with this, it will not stop with this administration, this is going to be the gift of the next one to come.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 08:15 AM
link   
On that glorious day, the American Founders proclaimed that all people possessed "unalienable rights," including the crucial legal right of habeas corpus. Some 230 years later on a dreary fall day in Washington, George W. Bush signed a law repealing America's founding principles and establishing a parallel system for prosecuting enemies of the state, including U.S. citizens. October 18, 2006

Found this article to commemorate a day that'll go over in history as the shift of paradigm.

Here's the last part of it.

Shame on Us All
By Robert Parry
October 18, 2006




False Confidence

When Congress was debating the military tribunal law in September, some Americans were reassured to hear that the law would apply to non-U.S. citizens, such as legal resident aliens and foreigners. Indeed, the law does specify that “illegal enemy combatants” must be aliens who allegedly have attacked U.S. targets or those of U.S. military allies.

But the law goes much further when it addresses what can happen to people alleged to have given aid and comfort to America’s enemies. According to the law’s language, even American citizens who are accused of helping terrorists can be shunted into the military tribunal system where they could languish indefinitely without constitutional protections.

Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission,” the law states.

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 [presumably U.S. military allies, such as Great Britain and Israel], shall be punished as a military commission … may direct. …

Any person subject to this chapter who with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign power, collects or attempts to collect information by clandestine means or while acting under false pretenses, for the purpose of conveying such information to an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a military commission … may direct. …

Any person subject to this chapter who conspires to commit one of the more substantive offenses triable by military commission under this chapter, and who knowingly does any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy, shall be punished, if death results to one or more of the victims, by death or such other punishment as a military commission … may direct, and, if death does not result to any of the victims, by such punishment, other than death, as a military commission … may direct.” [Emphases added]

In other words, a wide variety of alleged crimes, including some specifically targeted at citizens with “an allegiance or duty to the United States,” would be transferred from civilian courts to military tribunals, where habeas corpus and other constitutional rights would not apply.

Secret Trials

Secrecy, not the principle of openness, dominates these curious trials.

Under the military tribunal law, a judge “may close to the public all or a portion of the proceedings” if he deems that the evidence must be kept secret for national security reasons. Those concerns can be conveyed to the judge through ex parte – or one-sided – communications from the prosecutor or a government representative.

The judge also can exclude the accused from the trial if there are safety concerns or if the defendant is disruptive. Plus, the judge can admit evidence obtained through coercion if he determines it “possesses sufficient probative value” and “the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.”

The law permits, too, the introduction of secret evidence “while protecting from disclosure the sources, methods, or activities by which the United States acquired the evidence if the military judge finds that ... the evidence is reliable.”

During trial, the prosecutor would have the additional right to assert a “national security privilege” that could stop “the examination of any witness,” presumably by the defense if the questioning touched on any sensitive matter.

The prosecution also would retain the right to appeal any adverse ruling by the military judge to the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia. For the defense, however, the law states that “no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever … relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions.”

Further, the law states “no person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories.”

In effect, that provision amounts to a broad amnesty for all U.S. officials, including President Bush and other senior executives who may have authorized torture, murder or other violations of human rights.
[my emphases *)]

Beyond that amnesty provision, the law grants President Bush the authority “to interpret the meaning and the application of the Geneva Conventions.”

In signing the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Bush remarked that “one of the terrorists believed to have planned the 9/11 attacks said he hoped the attacks would be the beginning of the end of America.” Pausing for dramatic effect, Bush added, “He didn’t get his wish.”

Or, perhaps, the terrorist did.

I'm afraid so.

Not even Stalin could have made "better" laws.

I suggest the 17th of October to be the day where Stars'n Stripes are lowered to half mast.

[edited for the million dollar question] *)Marg, here you got it, they won't risk to stand trial in the Hague.

[edit on 18/10/06 by khunmoon]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 08:32 AM
link   
I think I'm going to start picking out my "lakefront" property at Gitmo. Anyone gonna live nearby me?





posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 08:33 AM
link   
See we can fight this things we the people can voice our outrage and make government work for us again.

I can not understand why it seems that most Americans are turning into sheep's bound to the slaughter house and do nothing about it.

It is pathetic that the only ones in Washington protesting at the time of this bill be sign were religious groups.

The same religious groups that gave Mr. Bush his victory in 2004.

What that tells you? to me it tells a lot.

Where is the rest of conservative America Why they are not backing up the religious groups?



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
See we can fight this things we the people can voice our outrage and make government work for us again.

I can not understand why it seems that most Americans are turning into sheep's bound to the slaughter house and do nothing about it.

It is pathetic that the only ones in Washington protesting at the time of this bill be sign were religious groups.

The same religious groups that gave Mr. Bush his victory in 2004.

What that tells you? to me it tells a lot.

Where is the rest of conservative America Why they are not backing up the religious groups?


The ACLU or some other group needs to take this bs law to the supreme court and challenge the constitutionality of it.....hopefully there are still some freedom loving honest judges on the court.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join