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.

 

The FBI and People "thinking"of terrorism

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Congress never created the FBI
: Read notes following 28 U.S.C. § 531 to find that Congress didn't create the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The FBI simply appeared in the Department of Justice -- it is an administratively-created entity, so cannot exceed authority originally vested in the Attorney General or the Department of Justice. Statutory authority vested in the FBI and the Attorney General is found at 28 U.S.C. § 535:
The Attorney General and the Federal Bureau of Investigation may investigate any violation of title 18 involving Government officers and employees...
Administrative creation of the FBI is confirmed in The United States Government Manual, 1996/97 edition, page 349:
"The Federal Bureau of Investigation was established in 1908 by the Attorney General, who directed that Department of Justice investigations be handled by its own staff..."
This administrative authority is also extended to Federal Agencies, and employees in regard to treaties entered into by the United States concerning terrorism.
U.S. Supreme Court
BOOS v. BARRY, 485 U.S. 312 (1988)

As a general proposition, it is of course correct that the United States has a vital national interest in complying with international law. The Constitution itself attempts to further this interest by expressly authorizing Congress "[t]o define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations." U.S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 10. Cf. The Federalist No. 3, p. 43 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961.
Well does Congress sit in assembly to implement treaties, "[t]o define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations."? Yes they do. Following is reference to the Congressional committee to implement a treaty with Europe concerning terrorism. This by the way is the same committee that wrote the Patriot “Act”.







TITLE 22 > CHAPTER 7 > SUBCHAPTER II-B > § 276m
§ 276m. United States Delegation to Parliamentary Assembly of Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE)
(a) Establishment
In accordance with the allocation of seats to the United States in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (hereinafter referred to as the “CSCE Assembly”) not to exceed 17 Members of Congress shall be appointed to meet jointly and annually with representative parliamentary groups from other Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) member-nations for the purposes of—
(1) assessing the implementation of the objectives of the CSCE;…..

Here’s the definition of terrorism according to the Council of Europe

Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism
Warsaw, 16.V.2005 conventions.coe.int...
The member States of the Council of Europe and the other Signatories hereto,
Recalling that acts of terrorism have the purpose by their nature or context to seriously intimidate a population or unduly compel a government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act or seriously destabilise or destroy the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation;
Have agreed as follows:
Article 5 – Public provocation to commit a terrorist offence
1 For the purposes of this Convention, "public provocation to commit a terrorist offence" means the distribution, or otherwise making available, of a message to the public, with the intent to incite the commission of a terrorist offence, where such conduct, whether or not directly advocating terrorist offences, causes a danger that one or more such offences may be committed
Article 8 – Irrelevance of the commission of a terrorist offence
For an act to constitute an offence as set forth in Articles 5 to 7 of this Convention, it shall not be necessary that a terrorist offence be actually committed.
Here’s the conforming Agreement located in the Patriot “Act”.


(USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001
SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2331

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.


While terrorism should be condemned, and punished, what about all the talk about thought crimes. The FBI is crusading to bust up groups that are attempting to (in their views) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion. What about Constitutional Rights to free assembly, and free speech, these aren’t in a real sense “crimes”, and furthermore who’s liable?. The answer is in a treaty. Parts are listed below.

frwebgate.access.gpo.gov...:td008.110.pdf




posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   
so, in summation, we're all terrorists and ATS is a terrorist organisation.

woohoo.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Xzibit - State of the Union

The FBI should arrest the real terrorists


[edit on 10-10-2008 by Grey Magic]



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Nothing new to me. The elite will find buzz words and laws to describe their needs exactly. Basically what alot of this says to me is anyone that tries to undue the current structure of things is a "terrorist", whether you're peacefull and backed by the masses or violent and backed by any means necessary. If you try to change injustice you will have injustice brought to you. I rambled- sorry about that.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Good thread. This is something I've worried about for quite some time now. The very term "terrorist" is simply meant to be "someone acting in opposition to your agenda" when applied to the governmental level. If the system has been corrupted, the "terrorist" becomes he who advocates justice.

This is also why I emplore people not to post your damned revolution plans on the internet. In fact, if I see a headline that even IMPLIES revolution, I won't read the thread.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   
I think there might be some misunderstanding as to what the treaty is saying. I’ll be the first to admit it’s awkward and a very hard read, that my friends is on purpose. Basically, Constitutional rights of the citizens in the several states, cannot be abridged by a treaty

U.S. Supreme Court
Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (1988)



[edit on 10-10-2008 by karlkar]




 
1

log in

join