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.

 

Bush signs Military Commission Act - Bloggers Beware

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   
The Military Commissions Act was just signed into law by our despot, President Bush, which includes a task force whose duty it will be to infiltrate message boards and blog spots on the Internet and engage individuals posting views critical of the administration, or what our government now terms "anti-American" talk, the purpose of which is to "aid the enemy."

"On September 28, the Senate voted 51-48 against an amendment proposed by Senator Arlen Specter to the Military Commissions Act which would have preserved the right of habeas corpus." This ruling on Sept. 28, effectively defeated the last attempt to retain this basic civil right in what Alex Jones reports on his website has just been signed into law.

SOURCE

Jones' article states (paraphrasing) that President Bush has just signed the Military Commissions Act, which would make bloggers criminals who post views criticizing the administration's war on terror, who are essentially "aiding the enemy."

Jones also states, "Recent scientific polls that show around 84% don't believe the government's explanation behind 9/11 and others confirming the fact that support for the war in Iraq is at an all time low have led the Bush administration to sharpen their knives against the new breed of perceived "enemy propagandists," bloggers, journalists and online activists who dissent against the 'war on terror.' "

Further, "CENTCOM announced earlier this year that a team of employees would be "[engaging] bloggers who are posting inaccurate or untrue information, as well as bloggers who are posting incomplete information."

SOURCE

Laws that can and will unquestionably be used against American citizens for engaging in - without fear or threat of reprisals - their constitutional right to Freedom of Speech, are being passed by this administration faster than we can keep up. Ashcroft's (and Bush's) position is that any criticism of this administration, or viewpoints contrary to the party line should be considered as criminal acts of sedition, and punishable by law. WHAT HAPPENED TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH?

If you aren't absolutely terrified about the laws being passed you should be. These laws are being signed under the guise of fighting terror - but what they really are doing is protecting this administration from its own citizens through every possible avenue, including our legal right to respond to the charges brought against us. Our government is afraid of its own citizens (citizens it has sworn to serve and protect). Even worse, our government feels threatened by speech. Words.

Further, our government has already "cautioned" judges in responding to, or taking issue with any future activities, or charges brought against any individuals under the USA Patriot Act. The Patriot Act, and accompanying terror legislation, is providing our government with total power over all citizens, removal of citizens' rights, and total impugnity from any legal accountability, or recourse in response to possible misuse, or abuse of power.

Little by little, day by day, our government is methodically covering up every loophole, and closing every gap that would provide them with anything less than total, unchecked, unquestioned power over every citizen at their total whim. And the fact that our government is signing into law an Act that would include targeting people voicing their opinion on websites, shows to just what lengths they will go to retain and excercise absolute and complete power over everything you do. They want to treat dissenters as criminals simply for voicing an opinion. THIS IS A FASCIST STATE. IT IS THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF A FASCIST STATE. And the fact that I make that statement makes me a criminal. Why? Am I a criminal?

These statements seem extreme, but when held up against the reality of the situation - that our paranoid and power hungry administration is sending forces to message boards to seek out individuals posting dissenting viewpoints, then we have come to a very frightening time in our country.

I will try to post some relevant links, but every citizen should be aware that the policies of this administration have pitted it against every one of its own freedom loving citizens. Our government is acting like not only every "enemy country" is a threat, but is now turning its paranoid gaze toward its own citizens. These are the desperate and sick acts of a failing administration. Mcain, Powell, and others have already distanced themselves from Bush in their words and their actions.

This opposition is further evidenced at this website, where sane, rational individuals from all sectors see what's happening and are doing everything in their power to stop this unchecked, vast and frightening grab for absolute, unqualified power.

This website details a number of websites that have been shut down by the U.S. government. Is ATS next? Will Alex Jones be arrested under these new laws? Are we all criminal seditionists for having a different opinion?

[edit on 18-10-2006 by OnTheDeck]




posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   
I post this stuff, obviously, because it's concerning. Ok, the Patriot Act and similar legislation has been pointed out. But this further legislation extends our government's counter measures down to our own message boards and personal blogs(!). This is an extension and a furtherance THAT MUST BE DOCUMENTED AND MADE CLEAR.

The signing of these bills/laws will fade into memory for most. For a large majority of U.S. citizens (and probably lawmakers) these have not even shown up on their radar screens. If you can think of a way beyond this to bring attention to these things, I urge you to do so.

I think that the reality of these laws has yet to sink in for a lot of people. A lot of people have to get beyond the idea that our government is infalible, and immune to moral and criminal transgressions. They're not. God, they're not. Their own documents prove this. And the admonitions and cautions of sitting cabinet level, and White House level officials should act as a serious call to citizens still on the fence about the legality and legitimacy of these laws.

I understand that it's hard to imagine the U.S. entering into a police state, and our military and government rounding up individuals. Ok, I see how that can be hard to swallow - and that's probably not actually necessary. These laws, which deem anyone the executive branch, or military chooses, a criminal, allow actions to be taken against that individual, and possibly friends, families and acquaintances of that individual. You don't need to be rounded up. You could be arrested, yes. But then think of your personal property, bank account(s), any assets. The government and military will lay claim to you and your possessions. Is this not clear enough? These are NEW laws, allowing even broader police power, and it is not checked, and there is no rebuttal, either from the individual(s) arrested, or from any court of law.

I'm not proposing I have the answer. I'm just hoping to assist in documenting and disseminating facts I feel are critical to get out to a wider audience. You can say, "Well I'll vote Democratic." But will that really help? It may be a start, but I would submit, as the problem/reaction/soluton model shows, we have most likely been lead to exactly where these individuals want us to be.

The only reasonable thing I can think of doing in response to this dangerous and "anti-American citizen" legislation, is to put right-minded individuals in office and urge the dismantling, removing, and reversing of the laws that are truly "Un-American". I am not urging physical violence, or even impeachment. I would say that aggressive, impetuous actions would only exacerbate an already sensitive situation. But something DOES NEED TO BE DONE.

I hope that I will see this come to pass, and not what the theorists are presenting, which is a tightening of governmental control, and a further use of military forces to act as a police force, a health regulatory organization (i.e., pandemic), and as a court of law that tries and convicts U.S. citizens without the rights granted to us by our constitution, and up to now, upheld by the government of the United States of America.





[edit on 18-10-2006 by OnTheDeck]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Democrats and Republicans are two peas in a pod. Voting one way or the other makes little difference at all. I don't see an end to these draconian laws until the people take their government back.

Why there are not riots in the streets over some of these laws is beyond my comprehension. It is an incorrigible fact that the government is playing the American citizenry like a bass fidel and we sit back and take it. It's ridiculous.

[edit on 18-10-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
I have said repeatedly that this is a world wide effort by the world's governments.

Here is some news from Canada,most of you probably already know about it, but I am just using this as an example of how far the world's governments are willing to go to take away your freedom:


Since the September 1, 2001 attack in New York city, over 800 people in Canada have disappeared into Canada's detention system without being allowed to contact family or lawyers in violation of human rights. (2). All this before C36 is law. Justice Minister MacLellan’s proposed changes to Bill C 36 are miniscule and will not prevent police abuse or the destruction of the Rule of Law in Canada. The tiny change to the definition of terrorism fails to eliminate the offensive language of section 27 which catches lawful protestors. Her changes speak to the trickery in government intentions from day one. This is no more than a pretence of response to opposition in effort to fool the public. That we would tolerate human rights abuses even for 5 years is shocking and unsupportable.

Stephen Owen, MP said, “We need the authority of it (Bill C36) in order to implement twelve (12) international treaties that Canada has entered respecting terrorism.” (3). The twelve international treaties Owen talks of referred to in Bill C 36 already have sufficient attention in existing Canadian laws. We do not need the Draconian measures of Bill C 36 to meet Canada's commitments in those United Nations covenants.

Canadian Laws

When are people going to realize that politicians are not our friends? When is there going to be real outrage?



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Since they shall in all prbability infiltrate this site, do you think they shall also attempt to falsly debunk theories which put America in a bad light under the guise of a new member? If so should we set up a sort of "neighborhood watch" to prevent us from being severly compromised? Just a thought.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I was just thinking the same thing when reading it. Has anyone "infiltrated" ATS yet? And if so are they purposely debunking theories which are truthful or close to the truth.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   
From your prison planet link:


The White House has made it perfectly clear that it will target American citizens for propagating information harmful to the interests of the U.S. government and classify them as enemy combatants. This is codified in sub-section 27 of section 950v. of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.


What it actually says:


‘‘(27) SPYING.—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
under this chapter may direct.


Not quite the same thing are they?



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   

or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished


A "co-belligerant" can be anyone opposed to the policies of the government. Therefore,yes,it is the same thing,Howard Roark.


[edit on 18-10-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 18-10-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   
No, there is a specific definition for the term.


‘‘(B) CO-BELLIGERENT.—In this paragraph, the term ‘cobelligerent’,
with respect to the United States, means any State
or armed force joining and directly engaged with the United
States in hostilities or directly supporting hostilities against
a common enemy.


How are bloggers subject to that, unless they are blogging for the "Al-queda Times?"



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   
sometime i wonder if we are going backward with all those news acts or laws sooo backward that in a few were gonna be around medieval, if your not happy with the king in place we chop your hands no more chatting or bloggin fo j00. Honestly this is no fun at all we about to see neo cons mods and the punishment is not a ban, its detention. Sometime i wonder what we have made to deserve sucha despot, like you mentioned, in charge. It is true it can be an unpratiotic act to discuss about bad decissions from the government but not in a war they already control everything from the start. Its obvious ppl agreement trew poll are going down but arresting ppl from talking too much in forums are clearly Gestapo style?

[edit on 18-10-2006 by eagle eye]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Howard,you seem to be twisting the word "co-belligerant" to fit your "perceived" much ado about nothing.

Co-Belligerant:


Co-belligerence is to be distinguished from a military alliance, but may be perceived as a euphemism. A government "finds itself" in a position as co-belligerent;

Co-Belligerance

Co-belligerance doesn't necessarily have anything at all to do with any kind of an
alliance.

[edit on 18-10-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Howard,you seem to be twisting the word "co-belligerant" to fit your "perceived" much ado about nothing.


No, I'm just relaying how the act defines the term. That is what is important, not how you, or anyone else defines it, but how it is defined by the law.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Speaker, this sentence, "The tiny change to the definition of terrorism fails to eliminate the offensive language of section 27 which catches lawful protestors." is very disturbing.

Regarding the term "Co-belligerant", all terminology, including our laws and the Constitution, are open to interpretation. It just so happens that this debate is being fought with respect to our president's interpretation of the Constitution, vs. how the U.S. Congress, in opposition to our president, intereprets the Constitution. Here we have an interpretation problem at the highest level.

This brings up a terrific philosophical point, and that is - what is not open to interpretation? I don't want to start a new thread on this, but our president and the United States Congress are disputing the interpretation of sections of the United States Constitution. Does anyone dare step into that argument and arbitrate it? And if so, on what authority?

This dispute specifically manifests itself with regard to President Bush's unprecedented use of "signing statements", which the president utilizes to nullify, or reject parts of laws - not the entire law, which is done through a veto - which the U.S. Congress has already decided is "unconstitutional". Does it matter? Apparently not.

In this case, President Bush, in an article at findlawy.com, entitled, The Problem with Presidential Signing Statements, has reportedly " issued 23 signing statements in 2001; 34 statements in 2002, raising 168 constitutional objections; 27 statements in 2003, raising 142 constitutional challenges, and 23 statements in 2004, raising 175 constitutional criticisms. In total, during his first term Bush raised a remarkable 505 constitutional challenges to various provisions of legislation that became law."

Further, "...Bush is effectively using signing statements as 'line item vetoes'. Yet the Supreme Court has held the line item vetoes are unconstitutional. In 1988, in Clinton v. New York, the High Court said a president had to veto an entire law: Even Congress, with its Line Item Veto Act, could not permit him to veto provisions he might not like.

The Court held the Line Item Veto Act unconstitutional in that it violated the Constitution's Presentment Clause. That Clause says that after a bill has passed both Houses, but 'before it become[s] a Law,' it must be presented to the President, who 'shall sign it' if he approves it, but 'return it' - that is, veto the bill, in its entirety-- if he does not.

Following the Court's logic, and the spirit of the Presentment Clause, a president who finds part of a bill unconstitutional, ought to veto the entire bill -- not sign it with reservations in a way that attempts to effectively veto part (and only part) of the bill. Yet that is exactly what Bush is doing. The Presentment Clause makes clear that the veto power is to be used with respect to a bill in its entirety, not in part.

The frequency and the audacity of Bush's use of signing statements are troubling. Enactments by Congress are presumed to be constitutional - as the Justice Department has often reiterated. For example, take what is close to boilerplate language from a government brief (selected at random): "It is well-established that Congressional legislation is entitled to a strong presumption of constitutionality."

Bush's use of signing statements thus potentially brings him into conflict with his own Justice Department. The Justice Department is responsible for defending the constitutionality of laws enacted by Congress. What is going to happen when the question at issue is the constitutionality of a provision the President has declared unconstitutional in a signing statement? Does the President's signing statement overcome the presumption of constitutionality? I doubt it. Will the Department of Justice have a serious conflict of interest? For certain, it will."

This article shows another disturbing angle to this administration's policy-making at work, does a great job of putting in laymen's terms exactly what is going on, and what has people in the highest levels of our government very concerned.

Whatever power or control Bush hasn't usurped through unacceptable legislation, he acquires secretly, by fiat, or simply acting with a philosophy of "It's better to ast forgiveness, then it is to ask permission". Or more accurately, President Bush doesn't see the faulty reasoning, or the flaws in his actions - he is acting with absolute, complete and deadly moral self-righteousness. This includes wiretapping, which our congress eventually ceded, despite the fact that Bush was engaging in it before it was brought before congress, so why does it really matter? Are there any laws left that are enforceable?

Is there a policy by which Bush can engage in criminal behavior and break laws, and then push for legislation to allow him to perform these acts legally, thereby nullifying the laws, or absolving himself from criminal punishment? Does this sound fair? And what if the legislation wasn't passed making it legal - would anything have been done? I say, aside from admonishment, and requests to stop this activity, nothing would be done.

Bush is acting quickly to pass legislation that makes just about anything he does above the law and beyond reproach. Period. He is nullifying laws that apply to himself, effectively creating a God like executive power that grants him total and complete reign over every citizen, and virtual immunity to every law he deems "unconstitutional"; esp. the ones that attempt to regulate, or create oversight to the potentially reckless behavior of an individual, him, who is creating laws granting himself more and more power, over and beyond what the U.S. Congress now holds.

And if sane individuals attempt to block legislation, Bush "moves forward" with programs anyway, knowing full well nothing will be done. Bush has used signing statements to remove laws that he doesn't see as in accord with "his interpretation of the Constitution." When you read about Bush's unprecedented use of this executive faculty, you begin to get a sense that there is a self-righteous, justified, and in his view, completely unassailable belief in ONE MAN'S - HIS - UNERRING JUDGMENT OF WHAT'S RIGHT FOR AN ENTIRE COUNTRY - AND THE WORLD. If this isn't megalomania I don't know what is. AND IT IS DANGEROUS!

[edit on 18-10-2006 by OnTheDeck]

[edit on 18-10-2006 by OnTheDeck]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   
OntheDeck,
very true. What many people in the United States fail to recognize is that all of these new powers that Bush has beholden upon himself may not even come into play during his presidency, but my main concern is intended and unintended consequences of the decisions he is making. Howard, obviously does not understand that as you put it,OnDeck, "it is open to interpretation."



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Once again, I have to point out that the act is clearly limited


This chapter establishes procedures governing
the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants
engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations
of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission.



The definitions and scope of the act are clearly defined.



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   
There is much to be concerned about and, at the same time, much to feel good about. For one thing, anyone stepping into this position has inevitably (or undoubtedly) shared in criticism over this administration's policies.

I can't see a candidate on the horizon who shares Bush's impenetrable sense of absolute, unquestionable moral correctness, or who has evinced a desire for power, or a seething hatred of "terrorists". Really, what religious, or moral conscience would set any God fearing man on a path to torture human beings to retrieve information from them? Especially, with the questionable efficacy of torture as an information gathering tool. It's cruel, inhuman, illegal, un-American, and morally and ethically indefensible.

My concern, and many others' concern, is the belief that this administration may not only know a truth different than the one they've presented to the world about 9-11, but that there is a possibility that our government colluded, or even perpetrated these acts against its own citizens in an attempt to set up a series of events, leading to the enactment of legislation providing unparalleled, unchecked and almost Godlike executive powers to Bush (not to mention the aqcuisition of financial gain). But, one has to ask himself, for what purpose?

I think it is a safe assumption that there are bright people (the wrong ones) in power right now; and definitely bright people influencing what is going on. These people would have foreseen the absolute outrage that would arise in response to the administration's hard ball tactics, and wresting of power from the congress. President Bush seems to be acting as if he were up against a deadline. It's very possible he is engaging in this reckless behavior, because he is about to leave office. But why would he act in discord with the congress, and further, the U.S. Constitution, if he knew these things would be retracted, removed, or rewritten? If anything, his edicts have a shelf life of the time it takes to retract them and that's it.

I submit a couple of possibilities. First, Bush has possibly just lost it. He has some moral, or self-righteous, blind sense of absolute justification, our constitution, the United States Congress, or the citizens be damned. He is simply acting reckelessly, and without sound judgment. A second possibility is that with the events of 9-11 imminently evaporating from peoples' minds the further we move from that catastrophe (i.e., his justification), not to mention the recent implication of Bush's own possible involvement, and the flop - absolute dud - of Iraq, he must be riding a wave of justification that he knows is rapidly dying. He has got to act quickly, before this window of opportunity closes and the congress and citizens force a moratorium on Bush's reckless activities (let's hope his distress doesn't cause him to manufacture another event that results in loss of life).

A third possibility is that he, and his silent backers, want these laws enacted, so the executor proceeding him can utilize them in a manner that has already been set up. A fourth possiblity, is that he (or his ilk in power) are planning an event which will necessitate martial law, a state of emergency, or some type of national emergency that will force a suspension of all laws, keep Bush in office, and will effect a military take over of this country. Part of me thinks, wellll...could be. The other part wonders if that is really a possibility, because the laws Bush is now twisting to his purposes would be a virtual waste of time if he were to just implement some catastrophe that would obviate all of this legal rigamarole. This is all obviously just speculation.

What is NOT speculation is the reality of the concern of this country at what this one man is doing in his fortress of solitude, and the very real, concerned reaction of those in our government at all levels. I think that the idea that we can run into the arms of a Democratic president is, at least in part, a faulty idea. It's a start, and having a Democratic congress is a start, but this would be detracting from the issue, and misplacing false hopes. The Democratic nominee has not proved to be trustworthy yet, but that's besides the point.

What needs to be addressed is the legislation Bush's administration has put into law that supersedes, revokes, or omits the rights and civil liberties granted by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The Constitution is not a piece of paper. It put our president in office. This is a symbol of our country, and it is a declaration of the inalienable rights of every human being. And for one man, any man, to treat this as simply a document - as a set of laws that can be circumvented, dismissed, or twisted to one's own ends out of a sense of self-righteousness - shows a lack of understanding, reverence and respect for the ideologies and hopes on which this country was founded. It also shows a lack of respect for the Office of the President of the United States, the U.S. Congress, and a fundamental lack of respect for the citizens for which he serves.

As much vituperation as I spread around here about Bush, he has a mother and a father like everyone else. And I wouldn't give all of the money in the world to be where he is now, as much as he may be right where he wants to be. He's a likeable guy - he may be a broken record with the "We're in a war on terror" thing (after office, maybe years down the road when he's like 80 or 90 years old, will he still be repeating that phrase, alone, in darkened rooms...? One has to wonder.), but he's a likeable guy. But in all sincerity, there have been too many egregious and illegal missteps, failed policies, criminal acts, and not to mention, 82% of his own country, including members of the U.S. Congress, and members of his own administration, have clearly stated their concerns and their position on this president's actions.

I would say, do not further dishonor yourself, the men and women who are dying in far away countries, your country, your office, or the citizens under whom you serve. There may be something honorable and truly right that you can offer before you leave this office. I hope to see it to be honest. Our reputation around the world has been shattered. It would be nice to see this president leave office and not have his greatest contribution be the intimidation of his own citizens, and an increase in torture legislation...for what it's worth...



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 05:46 PM
link   
I just came across a new interview transcript that was placed on the Project Camelot site. This is the site that interviewed John Lear among others, and those videos are linked at that site.

I'm posting this, because the individual interviewed has indicated that there will be a manufactured, scheduled conflict with China in late 2008. THAT MIGHT BE SIGNIFICANT! There are so many places to look for a distraction/power grab event - pandemic, nuclear or other attack on American soil - that it's hard to know where to look, or what to look for. But I'm watching - and I bet a growing number of people are watching right along with me.

I learned on the news today that China and Russia are actually taking a stance against North Korea with regard to this nuclear testing; and this would run counter to a possible conflict occurring between the U.S. and China. So who knows...?

Also, the U.S. has been very staid about North Korea, and we've already taken Afghanistan and Iraq. Really, we seem to have a hard on for Iran, but we'll have to wait and see. Keep your eyes on North Korea and China (it's like a game of watch the cups). There is a very good chance that we'll have an inciting incident before Bush is out of office...none can tell...but all are watching. And after the 82% report, I'd say it would take a lot to sell this republic on a catastrophe at this point...maybe better to just quietly and honorably depart your office...

Here is the link to the project Camelot interview. And I'm not saying it's fact, but it presents some interesting perspectives and possibilities...Here's a link to Project Camelot.

[edit on 18-10-2006 by OnTheDeck]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Once again, I have to point out that the act is clearly limited


This chapter establishes procedures governing
the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants
engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations
of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission.



The definitions and scope of the act are clearly defined.



Please, instead of repeating what's in the legislation you don't answer to my question...

You're right that this chapter only refer ``officialy`` to Alien Unlawful Enemy Combattants, but why do they say this:

``(26) WRONGFULLY AIDING THE ENEMY.--Any person(alien, why don't they just say alien if they are the only targeted?) 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.



See, aliens can't breach allegiance nor duty to the US because they are ALIENS, this is pure NON-SENS. Allegiance and duty to the US is strictly for US citizens, it's just evident. So why they use the words ALLEGIANCE and DUTY if it's not aimed at US citizens? Anyway, if they want to declare someone an alien enemy combattant, nobody will stop them.


[edit on 18-10-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
[Please, instead of repeating what's in the legislation you don't answer to my question...

You're right that this chapter only refer ``officialy`` to Alien Unlawful Enemy Combattants, but why do they say this:

``(26) WRONGFULLY AIDING THE ENEMY.--Any person(alien, why don't they just say alien if they are the only targeted?) 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.


What part of "subject to this chapter" don't you understand?


Originally posted by Vitchilo
See, aliens can't breach allegiance nor duty to the US because they are ALIENS, this is pure NON-SENS. Allegiance and duty to the US is strictly for US citizens, it's just evident. So why they use the words ALLEGIANCE and DUTY if it's not aimed at US citizens? Anyway, if they want to declare someone an alien enemy combattant, nobody will stop them.


[edit on 18-10-2006 by Vitchilo]


You are wrong there.

Foreign nationals, while in the United States, owe an allegiance to obey the laws of the United States.

en.wikipedia.org...


Every citizen of a foreign state in America owes a double allegiance, one to it and one to the United States. He may be guilty of treason against one or both. If the demands of these two sovereigns upon his duty of allegiance come into conflict, those of the United States have the paramount authority in American law



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Democrats and Republicans are two peas in a pod. Voting one way or the other makes little difference at all. I don't see an end to these draconian laws until the people take their government back.

Why there are not riots in the streets over some of these laws is beyond my comprehension. It is an incorrigible fact that the government is playing the American citizenry like a bass fidel and we sit back and take it. It's ridiculous.

[edit on 18-10-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]


OMG... honestly.. I think I connected something..

Why are we not rioting.. I gave the question thought.. I mean, why the hell are we not rioting in the streets right now.

Then I thought .. hell why don't I go and start a riot.. then I remembered I had extra bills this month and needed over time, 2 or so nights in jail would mean I would have to pay with credit cards, which puts me in further debt. When you make as little as I do and try and give your self and my fiance a good life... I cannot be a rioter. I cannot go to peaceful protest.. I can't even miss work to go vote for crying out loud.

Bush came to office we where prosperous. We were in fact in a golden age. Then the dot coms collapsed, this was not Bushes fault, presidents have little to do with economies unless their policies directly effect it, which usually they dont because of lobyist. Well the golden age ended before 9/11, though that put the icing on the cake huh? Our economy completly switched that day, and the folowing months. Since 9/11 and the end of the golden age of our economy company profits have soared!!! ... They are richer BY FAR then EVER BEFORE. This is infact a corporate golden age within America.. they are living it up I tell you. At the same time.. for the first time since the 1980's.. before the fall of the Soviet Union.. corporate wages are up and and our wages are stagnet. Amazing that they get so much profit and they are not giving to the employees, no ones getting what they need to live.

The middle class is now strapped for cash, though the government says we are doing fine because those who can affoard stocks are raking it in, little guys like me are SUFFERING! .. I got a job I made $8.44 an hour.. then I got a pay cut.. the bastards cut my pay to save money, then gave a raise to my bosses and a bonus. Like wise the house has REFUSED to pass a bill to raise the minimum wage! ... why?? So much profit it can surly be affoarded! Then you have companies complaining about the cost of health care.. like Walmart while they make billions! .. take half the personal income of the 3 top executives at walmart and they could pay for healthcare. instead the top 3 men are in the top 10 list of most wealthiest men. Billionairs. They make in an hour what I make in a year!

Meanwhile, using me as an example, gas goes up. No biggie? .. No biggie!!?? .. Did you see how much I make?? .. every cent counts, and my old beat up chevy is not kind at the pump, cant get a loan for a new car either because intrest rates are going up while this whole "Credit" system continues to Sh%& on me, ever ask for a loan and they offer you one for 23% intrest?
quite literally fliped the guy off. I have rent, I have groceries which have gone up, because of gas prices they say. Then there is insurence, cost of food. And heaven forbid I have some beer money to enjoy the few days off work right? Then there is college, which seems to rise every year along with books.
Half the books are never even needed.

So tell me, if I wanted to riot... how would I.. if I had the extra money, id be out there when ever I could.. I would lead the charge to hang that sack of !$!^ Ohio has for a governer.. then wait to hang the piece of crap that will fill his shoes.

Why are we not rioting, protesting.. doing something? We are busy working, its not just me.. my parents make 50k + each and are strapped for cash, adjustible rates are killing them, they are using some of their retirement money.. what little is there after 4 kids.. I remember we went out once a week as a family to a nice restraunt.. we built an adition to the house, a nice big pool.. a brand new deck and fixed up some of the old farm.. And now that changed even though they have gotten raises, make more then they used to, have 1 kid fewer in the house.. strapped for cash. Hard working Americans, my father served in the army in vietnam, my mother a teacher. The government left them behind. The government left all the hard working middle class behind.. you can disagree.. show me figures.. show me the inflation numbers... Il only look at real people and see how they struggle. I watched a documentry on janitors.. making about $6 an hour if lucky.. by them selves, sometimes a single parent, men and women.. none lived decently.. some strived to make ends meet, they where not ghetto hoodlums, they where honest people.. livng in a studio sleeping on a dirty matress in the corner with a toilet by the sink. We ought to expect that in Africa, in Asia.. not in America.. can those people spare the time to protest??? No.. they can't.

If the economy where to fall.. and people had time on their hands, didnt have a home to worry about.. had to fight for food... then they would care what the leaders of our nation did, but right now they simply cannot affoard to publicly voice their opinions.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join