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.

 

Contradictions and Legal Technicalities under the U.S. Constitution and Military Law.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   
By falcon

I dont know where else to put this so im going to post it here.

Contradictions and Legal Technicalities under the U.S. Constitution and Military Law.

Sense 1933 and the creation of the war powers act the United States has been in a declared state of national emergency.

War powers act.
en.wikipedia.org...

You will notice that the war powers act is derived by the trading with the enemy act of 1917. Anyone with any kind of common sense knows that trading with the enemy is illegal it’s considered to be a form of espionage / treason. Treason is defined basically as given aid and comfort to a enemy of the nation in a time of war.

Habeas Corpus.

en.wikipedia.org...

People are jumping up and down about the suspension of habeas corpus. It’s not illegal to suspend it because we are in a time of declared state of national emergency. It’s not the commander and chief that’s in charge. It’s the military that’s in charge under the war powers act of 1933. Now you cant technically arrest the president of the united states. But there’s nothing in U.S. Law or the Constitution that says you cant arrest the Commander and Chief.

Big difference not only to mention the fact that the laws of the Uniform Code of Military Justice apply’s under a state of national emergency. Now I everyone that’s reading this to pay very close attention to what im about to say because this is key. Under times of Economic or National Emergency, that under the war powers act of 1933 not any amendment’s sense then places the United States under military law.

Meaning military laws applies until the time of which the state of national emergency is dropped or the state of economic emergency is over / war is over also. Heh because Mr. Bush and the white house, congress and others tried to usurp the military laws in a time of economic emergency that makes them liable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Specifically when the Cuba Prison’s cases start to come out when Congress tried to intervene when they did were technically breaking the law. That put congress under the Jurisdictional Authority of the Military even if people don’t realize that the military is well with in the bounds of the law to do so.

Now like I said before under dealing with habeas corpus it’s legal for the Military to suspend it because congress broke the law by trying to supercede there jurisdictional authority
guess what that means. They now all can legally be arrested under military law. They can also be arrested as a enemy combatant and held indefinitely and be prosecuted without seeing there accuser’s and it’s legal
.

Nothing illegal about it and guess what else Mr. Bush can legally be arrested as well. If they try to challenge it in the Supreme Court they have to over turn the 1933 war powers act which ultimately will mean that all executive orders will be null and void should the supreme court rule the military was outside there jurisdictional authority if they were to arrest bush


That also will mean that we will no longer be under Military law thus this means habeas corpus would not technically be able to be suspended and also every law that has been passed including anyone person prosecuted under any law after 1933 would be let go if in prison or if they were convicted of any crime on the books or laws that were on the books after 1933 would be set free and there records expunged
.

And with the creation of the Patriot Act that means any law on the books any where in the united states people can be prosecuted and charged with treason. That’s why the recent California case of someone getting charged with treason is legal
. That means Mr. Bush and his whole administration can also be charged with Treason and it’s legal. That also means anyone person that has given aid to anyone outside of the United States can also be charged with treason and it’s legal.

But to do that you have to have a fresh case of what’s known as “case precedent”
if you understand this you can understand a little about what’s about to happen next.

You many not think that it can happen and many people say nothing is going to change you have to know the law and laws in order to understand how it applies.

Falcon




posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   
More Evidence.

en.wikipedia.org...

Mr. Bush and Other's are under the Juristictional Authority of the Military and there's nothing they can do about it besides making a challenge on the 1933 war powers act and if they do that it costs them the release of every prisoner in the united states.



Falcon


[edit on 15-11-2006 by falcon]



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   
This is fascinating. Can you list some sources or tell us where you got this info?
Thanks.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Actually I have always know that by the constitution the president is not exempt from any charges that We the people may want to give him, because after all We the people have the right to take any administration that the people deem as a threat to our nation.

Bush may be in charge but his presidency was appointed by The people so he is not with unlimited powers.


[edit on 15-11-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
This is fascinating. Can you list some sources or tell us where you got this info?
Thanks.


Source 1:
Defination of Crimes on the High Seas.

www.fclr.org...(noframes).htm

"[IV.A.1] Article I of the Constitution grants to Congress the power "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations."(55) Inherent in this grant of power is an understanding that a "Law of Nations" separate and apart from the domestic law of the U.S. exists.(56) This "Law of Nations" is embodied in both customary international law and international treaties that have attained the status of customary international law or which have codified pre-existing customary international law.(57) Existing as a subset of this "Law of Nations" is the field of international humanitarian law, a branch of law"

The "law of nation's" comes from the clause League of Nations which was later to be called "The United Nation's" after the League of Nation's colapsed. Technically speaking the Law of Nation's does not apply it's color of law and the way that can be proven is there has never been a declaritory ruling on the Micheal New case.

Source 2:
Micheal New Case:

www.mikenew.com...

The reason why the court did not and still does not want to make a ruling in the regards to the mike new case is because it will establish one of two things.

1. That international treadies signed during the league of nation's does not apply.

Or

2. That international law superceeds laws of the Military and Laws in the United States.

Showing a "case precident" of a case like Micheal News case that he was in the right be refusing a direct order would prove the United States was still operating under the Consititution of The United States if there was a declaritory ruling.

It would also prove the Consititution was never suspended because you cant suspend the Consititution which is one of the long debated arguments over the war powers act was it legal under U.S. Law.

Thus making anyone convicted of a crime after 1933 having there record's expunged and any trial lawyer, judge or officer "liable" for redress of grievence's and obstruction of justice on the local, state or federal law's.

If there was a ruling showing that the war powers act was legal then it would show the consititution no longer applied and they would allow people to also petition for a redress of grivences under a different clause and article.

This also means if any judge or person working for the state or state's in the United States if the ruling came back the War Powers Act was not consititutional then every single employee of the state or states would have to redo there licence's and all people working for the government would have to be re apportioned.

Meaning about 90% or more of state and fedeal government current employee's including intrest groups would be out of a job.

Keep in mind also that during the time of the creation of the laws of nation's the United States was engaging in a contraxual nexus with countries outside of the United States this was after the creation of the war powers act which has ties to the trading with the enemy act of 1917.

If it's rulled that the war powers act is unconsititutional then that means congres and "all" elected officals after 1933 can be charged with "Trading with the Enemy" and "Treason".

Falcon




posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 07:24 AM
link   
If you want Contradictions, I have one for you:


Treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article Three defines treason as levying war against the United States or "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort,"


SOURCE: Wikipedia- Treason

Now, the same source defines Espionage as:


Espionage is the practice of obtaining information about an organization or a society that is considered secret or confidential (spying) without the permission of the holder of the information.


I ask you this: How exactly do you pass secret information to an enemy without giving them Aid? If you sell an enemy the plans for a secret weapon so they can copy it, are you NOT Aiding them?


If anyone with a legal background can explain how you can give an enemy your country's defense secrets without helping them, PLEASE Explain it to me!

Apperently there is a way, because here in the US, spies are not chaged with Treason!



Don't you just love US contrdictions?


Tim

[edit on 16-11-2006 by Ghost01]



posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01
If you want Contradictions, I have one for you:


Treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article Three defines treason as levying war against the United States or "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort,"


SOURCE: Wikipedia- Treason

Now, the same source defines Espionage as:


Espionage is the practice of obtaining information about an organization or a society that is considered secret or confidential (spying) without the permission of the holder of the information.


I ask you this: How exactly do you pass secret information to an enemy without giving them Aid? If you sell an enemy the plans for a secret weapon so they can copy it, are you NOT Aiding them?


If anyone with a legal background can explain how you can give an enemy your country's defense secrets without helping them, PLEASE Explain it to me!

Apperently there is a way, because here in the US, spies are not chaged with Treason!



Don't you just love US contrdictions?


Tim

[edit on 16-11-2006 by Ghost01]


If you are not accepting anything in return for the information / secret's you are not considered to be trading with the enemy. Now if I were to take some classified information and sell it to the united kingdom or austrailia for instance then if that information was indeed classifed I would and could be charged with treason / espionage that would not mean I was guilt of it big difference.

The problem is it's the duty of congress to make the law clear and easy to understand of which they have failed at doing. That's why there has been so many and rightfully just claims saying the patriot act violates the law because it does.

Because the law is not clear and easy to understand which is the duty of congress they makes them deliquent and any laws they might have passed during any time they failed in there first duty that makes the laws they might have passed null and void until such time the law can be re examined.

Which is the sole duty of the surpreme court. If you can prove the supreme court has made a bias ruling or a un just ruling then either that law or law's has to be struck down or there has to be a motion for a requsal of that judge. And no matter what the supreme court may think you can remove a supreme court judge.

Just the very idea of that compels them to do there job and the supreme court does there job in many cases better then congress most of the time. However due to the fact the supreme court in 2000 broke the law by superceeding there authority by declaring George Bush the President of the United States they broke the law by Violating Seperation of Powers.

That also makes any ruling the supreme court has made sense making that ruling in 2000 null and void. That includes any law's passed sense George Bush obtained the presidency. Once the law was clearly broken by the highest court in the land no laws applied in the United States changing the rules and laws in which we can be governed.

Because there has never been a retraction of the orginal ruling of the supreme court of there ruling in 2000 by violating the seperation of powers act, the puts the We the People in charge of the rule making and decison making process in which if the government becomes so corrupt it is the right and duty of the people to remove such government to continue there way of life.

It does not say how to do that. Meaning if people in the FBI feel they cant take there message or messages anywhere to anyone in the United States in accordance with United States Code title 18 section 4, then technically speaking even if the information is classifed they have the right to give that information to a overseas press if they feel they cannot aquire justice under the normal governing system.

It would be reconised as legal if the person doing it could prove they had not other right to redress of grivences. And to answer the question "How exactly do you pass secret information to an enemy without giving them Aid? If you sell an enemy the plans for a secret weapon so they can copy it, are you NOT Aiding them?"

That depends if you are under contract with a spacific set of term's and conditions then you are liable in most case's. But then you have to define the united states and see which set of laws apply to you why living in the united states.

Here's a little news flash for most people when gold and silver were taken in the united states as a form of currency the current president at the time which If I remember correctly was Rosavelt gave people the unlimited right to contract in exchange for there gold and silver as currency.

Evidence:
www.wepin.com...

Hale vrs henkle is still used today in a pure trust, a pure contract trust is a form of contract law that was around before the unlimited right to contract was given to the people of the united states.

I can write any law I want to and there's nothing anyone can do about it, it might not be legaly binding but that's not a matter for me to decide that's a matter for the supreme court and the court's. However if the courts already were and are corrupt then until such time the law can be corrected of the orginal breaking of the law it's anyones right to change the govenment how they see fit.

You can argue that I for instance dont have the right to put out information to for instance ats but if you do that, then you would have to prove everyone else does not have that right either. Even when you sign up for ats or yahoo or any other website you have a clause which you have to "agree to" that set's out a set of "term's and conditions".

Because every contract is subject to change and that also includes anyone that entered into the orginal contract it means you can change the terms and conditions for instance of ats. But then if Simon deemed that it was against his own personal policies and said change the terms and conditions and you or I didnt's Simon would be well with in his juristictional authority to ban me or anyone else that disagreed with those term's and condtions.

The same for any law or contract on the book's today. I can rewrite the constitution that does not make it legal to do so. Getting back to the war powers act it's never been proven one way or another that the war powers act is or isnt consititutional.

And until there is such a case the law technically has been broken for over 70 year's that's alot of laws that dont apply to anyone in the united states when you start to think about it.

And to further answer the question

"How exactly do you pass secret information to an enemy without giving them Aid? If you sell an enemy the plans for a secret weapon so they can copy it, are you NOT Aiding them?"

It's the responsiblity of the leadership and the law makers in washington and else where to "set the tone" of how the laws will be carried out in the united states. If it can be proven they were trading with the enemy / trading secret's what ever the case may be they have to prove what they were doing was both legal or illegal.

And until such time as that occur's it's not a settled matter. That's more then likly what's got washington so scared about the AIPAC case because it proves people in washington were caught techincally trading with the enemy. That set's the tone for a possible ruling on trading with the emeny which could set the tone for a ruling on the war powers act.

Falcon




posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by falcon


War powers act.
en.wikipedia.org...

You will notice that the war powers act is derived by the trading with the enemy act of 1917. Anyone with any kind of common sense knows that trading with the enemy is illegal it’s considered to be a form of espionage / treason. Treason is defined basically as given aid and comfort to a enemy of the nation in a time of war.



Trading as a sovereign nation with an enemy nation is not illegal. It is not consider treason or espionage unless the overall intent was to harm the country.


[edit on 17-11-2006 by Logic616]

[edit on 17-11-2006 by Logic616]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join