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.

 

War Resistance Arrests Rise

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Oh yes, it just the liberal media. Nothing to see here. And those you tube videos are not made up. Those are real. That is Dennis Kucinich reading the Articles of Impeachment against two war criminals, Bush, and Cheney.

I provided so many sources and your only response is "Liberal Media"? Are you serious? Here what the UN Charter says about Wars of Aggression:

Here's the whole Charter that the US signed, and pretty much authored for very good reasons, as a result of this ratification, any treaty we sign is part of our constitution and supreme law of the land:

Article. VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths


Article VI

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States



Here's where the UN Charter relates to Wars of Aggression: Articles 48 - 51
www.un.org...

Article 48

1. The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.

2. Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members.

Article 49

The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council. Article 50 If preventive or enforcement measures against any state are taken by the Security Council, any other state, whether a Member of the United Nations or not, which finds itself confronted with special economic problems arising from the carrying out of those measures shall have the right to consult the Security Council with regard to a solution of those problems.


Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.



This means that Everything in my above article, by authority of the president and of congress whom are complicit, is a war crime. The UN Security Council determined that the evidence presented on Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction was weak, and that the Bush administration was being less than forthcoming about how they came to those conclusion. And then this happened:

news.yahoo.com...
globalresearch.ca...
oversight.house.gov...

That pretty much deals a blow to self defense. , did the security council authorize the US to invade Iraq? Simple answer, NO. War is illegal unless you are defending yourself or if the Security Council Agrees to it. We signed it, we ratified it, we have to follow it.

Bush is a war criminal, and so is everyone who facilitates their continued crimes.




[edit on 21-6-2008 by projectvxn]




posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


You have yet to provide any unbiased source that confirms your claims. I could go to right-wing wacko sources which completely disagree with your left-wing wacko sources. The difference is I realize that both sides are filled with wackos and are not legitimate sources, while you seem to be under the delusion that left-wing wacko blogs like DailyKos constitute "proof."

Yep, your showing your part of the partisan political propganda machine. Good old Dennis entire career is based on filing false charges and political grand standing. There is a reason why hes so close to losing his seat - hes nuts.

Really, your irrational hatred is blinding you to reality.

Bush is not a criminal, your partisanship has absolutely blinded you - its kind of sad. One of the worst hate mongers I've see on ATS in a while - and since they flock to ATS, that is saying quite a bit. Calm down, relax. I don't like the Bush either, but I'm not going to buy into the propaganda when all the evidence shows your wrong. I realize this upsets you, since on ATS people are used to non-stop Bush bashing - but its alright - there will be plenty of Bush bashing in this thread and every other one - they pop up every 2 minutes on ATS.

I'm beginning to suspect your a DNC operative. That, or you spend way to much time hating Bush. Its not good for your health.

[edit on 21-6-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 


Obviously you didn't even bother to dissect the rest of the post. I suppose this conversation was over before it started. A good debate involves citing sources, and discussing points in detail and to get to the truth of the matter. All you're doing is attacking me, using political bashing as a weapon to get whatever point you're trying to make across, and it just isn't worth continuing. I'm putting forward effort here, and I'm respecting you enough to provide you where I get my information, and my interpretation of the facts before me. That is all. Why can't you show me that respect? Why can't you actually debate? And that DailyKos piece was ONE of MANY sources. Nice picking and choosing there. How usual politician.

[edit on 21-6-2008 by projectvxn]

[edit on 21-6-2008 by projectvxn]



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


Outstanding post, and great references to the constitution, I guess many forget that our political leaders are bound to the constitution.

Sad when you see our nation falling for fascism.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
A good debate involves citing sources, and discussing points in detail and to get to the truth of the matter.


The problem is you have yet to cite actual valid sources. You see, a good debate involves using valid sources - your using blog spam and known propaganda websites. These are not sources - I'm only going to spend time refuting valid sources, not trash.


Originally posted by projectvxn
I'm putting forward effort here, and I'm respecting you enough to provide you where I get my information, and my interpretation of the facts before me. That is all. Why can't you show me that respect? Why can't you actually debate?


Actually, you accused me of obviously having nothing at stake because I don't agree with radical war protesters who try to get arrested and then scream that them getting arrested is a sign of some sort of bad thing going on. Respect is a two way street. This is not respect.

However, I do stand by the fact that the bulk of your sources are well known propaganda and trash blog sites - not known for being unbiased sources. This obviously makes me suspect that your politically motivated, because nearly every site you quote is known for being so far to the left it borders on political derangement. However, if I implied anything beyond that, I apologize, as I did not mean to.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by projectvxn
 


Outstanding post, and great references to the constitution, I guess many forget that our political leaders are bound to the constitution.

Sad when you see our nation falling for fascism.




Yeah no kidding, and yet I receive not reasonable point of contention except for charges of being a liberal, or being part of some sort of propaganda machine, never mind the YEARS of digging and research that people like me do. Never mind what anyone else says is going on, never mind what sources I use, none of that is legitimate because I'm a liberal/socialist/whatever you wanna call me.

Between you and me, this kind of "debating" is getting old..Wouldn't you agree?



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 12:16 AM
link   
I see the new ATS fad is to wave around the word constitution even when your actually ignoring it. Its like right wing wackos waving the flag.

Sadly, most users on ATS think they know what the constitution says but are only perverting it for their narrow worldviews and they have no idea of what it actually means.

Its sad to see our nation falling for socialism.

Article II


The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;


H.J. Res 114


(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.


In the event that you want to claim 2 is wrong - which is sketchy because even disregarding WMD resolutions by the UN there are a ton of other enforceable resolutions that had nothing to do with the existence of WMDs - number 1 is completely open to political interpretation which is why this was not "criminal" no matter how bad you want it.

Alas, we only wave around the constitution when it fits our political agenda...

Anyways, its obvious people just want to hate monger and back slap each other over how evil George Bush was and how righteous they are to be anti-war. So ya'll have fun starring each others posts and being righteously indignant at all opinion that does not concur with the propaganda machine.
Oh yes, throw around the word "constitution" occasionally for good measure to make yourself feel even more righteous. Context doesn't matter.

This is a classical example of why the anti-war movement can't be taken seriously. Most of the people in it are to busy hate mongering and making stuff up to address the actual issues. Remember, you CAN be anti-war based on the facts, and not the propganda...I am...

..But that will be the minority on sites like ATS. Its so much easier to buy into the hive mind.


[edit on 21-6-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 


uh huh, but do you realize that just because it was ok'd by congress and executed by the president on FALSE information and even MADE UP information is a violation of international and FEDERAL law?

I suppose that means little to you though right? How about the National Intelligence estimate telling Bush that Iraq was NOT an Imminent threat? How about the CIA having meetings with the president voicing concerns over the "intelligence" he was using in his speeches to make the case for Iraq? What about the fact that Richard Clarke, former top Counter Terror Official for the bush admin came out and said that all of this is based on a lie, and that they should be held accountable? What about Scott McClellan's testimony, his book?

I suppose this is all media garbage and liberal crap right? No legitimacy there? What about former 2 star general that investigated Abu Ghraib says Bush should be charged and tried, or is he just a liberal/socialist/propaganda peddler?

Anything else?



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


Right from the printing presses of the Democrat National Committee, and into your mouth. Its amazing. Your just reading off the DNC's talking points.

If you read it again, I've already addressed this. The evidence for the war is strong enough that no one is going to argue it couldn't be construed properly under (1) - because the authorization was worded broadly - and especially because it says "as he deems necessary."

Don't you understand? The war breaks no laws. There are thousands of lawyers that are filled with your same hatred and rage that would absolutely love to get at George Bush. It would be a Democrat orgasm, an absolute dream. Unfortunately, they can't - because while they put out propaganda to fuel your hatred, they know the evidence isn't there. You know that...but of course your here to spread the liberal propaganda.

I'm against republican propaganda too, by the way, but on ATS the bulk of it is liberal - and in this case your all but a DNC surrogate. Anyways, this will be my last post in this thread. I realize liberal propganda is a large part of what motivates posters on ATS, but this thread is dripping with it. You have fun.

You may now commence bashing the guy that doesn't agree with the hive mind propaganda. Someone will, before the thread drops. I promise!

[edit on 21-6-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
reply to post by projectvxn
 

many war protesters want to be arrested and will do everything possible to get arrested.


Do you have any proof of this claim. I would like to see your source for this information. Lets see just one peer reviewed article or 1 academically edited book that supports this notion
Your entitled to believe in whatever you want. That doesn't make it true. In fact, when you believe in things that are not true, it just hurts your credibility.

I have pretty easy standards of evidence.The problem is you have none. I don't take to well to propaganda, I'm used to examining the evidence.

I suggest you wake up. You are sleeping. Your to busy pointing fingers and trying to find evil that your completely blind to the real evil in this world.ATS is not anyones personal soapbox to opine and shut out people who demand to see evidence.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by cbass
 


Peer reviewed articles going into varying detail about the use of professional protesters (who attempt to get arrested for political motives) in the Iraq war, and as compared to their use in other conflicts:

Such, E., O. Walker, & R. Walker. 2005. Anti-war children: Representation of youth protests against the second Iraq War in the British national press. Childhood, 12(3): 301-326.

O'Neill, K. 2004. Transnational protest: States, circuses, and conflict at the frontline of global politics. International Studies Review, 6(2): 233-252.
International Studies Review

I could provide about 500 more, but you only asked for one - I doubled your request!

The sad part is that's about as much peer reviewed research as has ever appeared on ATS on this subject due to the anti-war liberal propaganda. Now, we return you to your regularly scheduled programming...all you hate mongers keep starring each others posts, if you stop supporting each other your movement is going to look even worse than it already is.

Oh, and to cbass: I believe the phrase is "you just got owned."


Seriously, I'm done posting on this now. If I keep posting I might laugh so hard something is going to break. I'll let the left-wing radicals bash me without a response. You guys are even funnier than the right wingers.


[edit on 21-6-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 



Peer review doesn't mean accurate:

Scientific Fraud Study:

www.uow.edu.au...


Links to such examples:

www.livescience.com...
www.npr.org...


You see even science is open to lies and fabricated data.
Remember to Bush, who is just now "acting" on climate change, the science was not in on Global Warming 8 years ago when a growing mountain of evidence was suggesting this was actually a problem we need to work on.
Now we're having very severe weather issues, many linked to a global rise in temperature, and nothing has been done to stop it or slow it down.

The NSF even cooked data for the Bush admin. You wanna talk about partisan politics. What about faking data, fabricating wars, and spying on Americans for political purposes?

Pick and choose the battles carefully.



[edit on 21-6-2008 by projectvxn]

[edit on 21-6-2008 by projectvxn]



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 


Actually I said NOTHING about professional protesters whatso ever.
I only mentioned your delusional fantasys that all war protesters want to get arrested.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
Remember, you CAN be anti-war based on the facts, and not the propganda...I am...

Huh? What's the difference WHY someone is anti-war, as long as they ARE anti-war? Wow, dread the thought that millions of people should protest against the war based on propaganda. The next thing you know is that they might actually make a difference! We can't have that happening, can we...???

I don't understand what you're typing. What facts does anyone need to know about the Iraq war to be opposed to it? You do realise what's happening in Iraq right now - innocent civillians are being killed by US troops. That's war for you.


Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
The war breaks no laws.

This statement reinforces why I have no faith in any legal/justice system. It is an absolute oxymoron for someone to sit at a computer keyboard and claim that the war doesn't break any laws.

Why don't you shout it out to your neighbourhood at the top of your lungs. "It's OK people, we're right! The war is not breaking any laws! All of those mothers and children that we've been killing has been legal! All of the houses, property and lives we've ruined has all been legal!".

People who claim the current war is legal have a sick sense of what right and wrong is. That includes all of the politicians who are it in for their own agenda.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


You are absolutely right.
I for one don't want to live in the same neighborhood with a person who
can justify the war in Iraq or any war for that matter, based solely on the fact that it is Legal.
I hope the families getting blown away by our troops are being informed
that they have a legal right to blow them away.

[edit on 21-6-2008 by cbass]



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


There are people who do this for a living. I know a few of them. They get on every single bandwagon when it becomes cool to protest something - it doesn't matter what it is. They are professional protesters.



Is there a job application for this....somebody get me one



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
The problem with this is that it is well known there are a ton of war protesters who want to get arrested. People are trying to relive the glory of protesting Vietnam. They get off on fighting "THE MAN" by protesting, and do whatever it takes to get arrested so when they go to court they can use it as a forum to spread their message.

I worked in a state capital building for a while, and as a state capital it makes no sense that people would use it to protest the war - they did. And lots of them got arrested on a regular basis. Why? Because they were doing things like slashing tires, and blocking people from entering buildings in the complex - for the later, they only got arrested after the police politely asked them to stop doing that 5 times.

This is a classical example of anti-war sensationalism...

[edit on 20-6-2008 by ALightinDarkness]


You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? I was there during the Vietnam war, no one was protesting for "glory", because there is none in protesting. You get pepper sprayed, beaten, arrested, etc. those are not pleasant activities. In the '60's, my generation tried to fight the PTB, we knew they didn't have our best interests at heart. It was a time of awakening for many. I am very much against war but not because I want media attention - give us pacifists a break, you obviously have no idea who you're talking about and what they are like.
And no, protesters are not frequently destroying property. I've been to many, many protests and in every single one, it was the cops and their agents provateurs that were causing the disturbances and attacking people, but the cops made it look like the protesters were the instigators. We're not trying to get arrested for fun, either.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 

Let me see so what you are saying is that people who are against the war want to be cool??
People who protest the policies of this adminstration want to relive their glory days?? and be cool at the same time.

Well ...........ok. you can think that if you like.




posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 08:01 PM
link   
There is more to the story. If you are arrested for protesting the war, you are placed in the FBI Crime database which is used to identify dangerous criminals. This database is made available to other governements so they can keep dangerous felons out of their country. For example, from Ann Wright's article about trying to attend a conference in Canada at Peace Activists - Dangerous Offenders


Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Codepink Women for Peace and Global Exchange, was also invited by the Parliamentarians, but had been arrested the previous day for holding up two fingers in the form of a peace sign during the US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing in which Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice testified on Iraq, Iran and Israel-Palestinian issues


I presented to immigration officials our letter of invitation from the Parliamentarians that explained that Medea and I had been denied entry to Canada at the Niagara Falls border crossing on October 3, 2007 because we had been convicted in the United States of peaceful, non-violent protests against the war on Iraq, including sitting on the sidewalk in front of the White House with 400 others, speaking out against torture during Congressional hearings, and other misdemeanors. The Canadian government knew of these offenses as they now have access to the FBI’s National Crime Information database on which we are listed. The database that was created to identify members of violent gangs and terrorist organizations, foreign fugitives, patrol violators and sex offenders-not for peace activists peacefully protesting illegal actions of their government.


Many countries have succumbed to the behind the scenes 9/11 pressure of the Bush administration to enact extensive and expansive anti-terrorism laws to increase “harmonization” and integration of security measures among countries. Unfortunately, the Canadian government is mirroring the Bush administration’s use of security measures to increase control over dissent in their country-and in other countries.


The war on terror seems to be more and more just a way to justify turning a county that once was the hope for freedom for oppressed people everywhere "yearning to be free" into a tightly controlled and monitored police state.

[edit on 21-6-2008 by metamagic]



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 


All you do is pit people of diff beliefs against each other and clump them together in neat little piles, which is your role in your one ring to rule all religion. Its ok to be wrong alightindarkness...your pride is unbearable though and it stifles your soul.

Have you ever not played devils advocate?

listen and dont judge

www.myspace.com...



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join