Dissenters To Be Detained As "Enemy Belligerents"?

page: 2
88
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
I want to know what the bill means by hostilities against the U.S. government. Is that just talking about people who have committed violence against the U.S. government? If so that would be fine- or- does the bill have much broader implications like making protests illegal? That's what I want to know.


Actually US dissenters / protesters would not be detained under this bill. According to the bill they are looking to detain “UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENT’ people. And as explained in the bill dissenters are “Privileged Belligerents” as defined by Article 4 of the Geneva Convention. In article four there are two categories (#4&6) that would cover citizens that are participating in organized resistance.


(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.


That’s my take on it. The one thing I don’t like is the, “Such other matters as the President considers appropriate.” Leaving a door open like that is never good.




posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
I won't go check your statement for accuracy...I will give you the benefit of the doubt. So, with that, it appears that this is a bipartisan bill; thus, bashing should be directed towards all politicians in favor of it...not just Obama.



I gave a link to President Obama's "indefinite detention" video which even Rachel Maddow talked about, and against. there is no need to give me the benefit of a doubt, just check it yourself.

We even had several threads about this back when this came out.

Yes, it is a bipartisan bill, but one which President Obama talked about and wished for.

President Obama even wanted to make it into "indefinite detention", that a person could be detained indefinetely even if that person committed no crime, and just for being a "possible terrorist"....

Then, if you check the list of who Janet Napolitano, and Homeland Security labeled as a "possible terrorist" you can see that this could be done to any American.



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Absum!

Actually US dissenters / protesters would not be detained under this bill. According to the bill they are looking to detain “UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENT’ people. And as explained in the bill dissenters are “Privileged Belligerents” as defined by Article 4 of the Geneva Convention.
...............


First of all, article 4 of the Geneva convention has nothing to do with peaceful dissenters. It is about armed resistance, and fighters.

Second of all, where in the bill does it say "dissenters are priviledge belligerents"?

BTW, the definition of "belligerent itself means someone who is aggressive, and peaceful protesters are not "aggressive".


Web definitions for belligerent

aggressive: characteristic of an enemy or one eager to fight; "aggressive acts against another country"; "a belligerent tone"

Link

[edit on 9-3-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   
It doesn't really matter what the definition of "UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENT’ is when he leaves in a loophole bigger than the freaking bill itself.


were screwed.


I might as well FedEx my azz over to the Domincan Republic.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by IntastellaBurst]



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by IntastellaBurst
 


Not to mention the fact that even President Obama has explained in the past that he wanted to make legal the ability of the government to detain anyone indefinetedly, even if they haven't committed a crime, and just simply for being a "POSSIBLE terrorist"....

Then we have the "Rightwing Extremists" report from Janet Napolitano, and Homeland Security where they label pretty much every true American as a "possible terrorist"....

I guess these people are forgetting all these facts....

We have had several threads about this with links to what the Obama administration now sees as "possible terrorists"....

[edit on 9-3-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
We are seeing the making of a military dictatorship. My friends, Keeps your rifles clean because it is going to get dirty. I do not want this. They are forcing the hand of the people with this kind of crap. This is probably the most important thread on ATS right now.



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Totally agree you guys, .... I can't believe this bill is hanging around and the mainstream media don't seem to be paying any attention to it.

.... This bill go's against the constitution itself, their trying to do away with the judicial process and claim absolute power.

This bill is setting the stage for martial law and the beginning of the end.

I wonder if their predicting uprisings and riots due to an economic collapse ??? we should pay attention to these clue's. Perhaps their giving us a glimpse of the future. and this bill holds much more significance than we can even fathom.



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   
I'm just thinking about the first post I made in this topic. I can't believe how accepting I've become about these kinds of practices. We don't even know for sure if these people labeled as enemy belligerents are in fact real enemies. This would just be another way of putting people who we don't like in a detention center without a trial.

It's just another way of getting around giving people who we may dislike, and, may very well be terrorists, a fair trial that they deserve. I believe in the principle that you're innocent until proven guilty and I'm shocked looking back at how in the beginning of the thread I didn't realize what the true intent of this bill was.



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 





What a bunch of horse crap Obama. To think we elected you hoping you would bring and end to tyranny, then you turn around and betray us later to become the biggest tyrant in American history. I think it is you sir who are an enemy belligerent!


Obama's just the messenger for the people who really run this country. They are the true tyrants. Obama's the one we're supposed to blame for the tyranny so they aren't discovered.



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


Nice flip flop, .... but thats ok, ... welcome to the real world my friend.

I wish you courage and strength, such a newborn baby fawn, taking its first clumsy steps, ... into a brave, ... new world.


sorry, I think I watch too many movies.



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by IntastellaBurst
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


Nice flip flop, .... but thats ok, ... welcome to the real world my friend.

I wish you courage and strength, such a newborn baby fawn, taking its first clumsy steps, ... into a brave, ... new world.


sorry, I think I watch too many movies.


Thanks. Although I should say that I haven't actually flip-flopped. I've always been a strong advocate of civil liberties. It's just at first I didn't realize the true implications of what this bill would do until much later. At first I thought oh hey we would be going after these Al-Qaeda people and then later on I remembered that it could be used to go after many innocent people.

For example, suspected terrorists in the U.S. who were accused of terrorism who may be innocent- may not be told what they were charged for so they couldn't consult a lawyer and what not. I just didn't realize that at first but after having put some thought into it I realize that the implications for this bill are pretty large when you think about all that it entails.

The issue is not if terrorists have rights or not it's whether accused terrorists have rights. And, I think that they do until they are proven guilty, or, whatever.



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   
why do people star & flag before they read what the hell they're flagging?
Why read teh headline and immeidately agree or disagree?

THIS ISN'T DENYING IGNORANCE



it is SUPPORTING it, whole heartedly

FROM THE BILL:



(8) PRIVILEGED BELLIGERENT.—The term ‘‘privileged belligerent’’ means an individual belonging to one of the eight categories enumerated in Article 4 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.


ARTICLE FOUR OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. (cut off, there is a lot more to read)
source for full article


The title of this thread is a HOAX. PROTESTERS are not classified as ENEMY BELLIGERENTS

The OP completely MADE IT UP

and you ALL VOTED FOR IT

[edit on 9-3-2010 by Snarf]



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 




Yeah, when a new law or bill comes out, I don't think about who it may be intended for, .... but I think " ok, how can they translate this" and use it recklessly.

see, if a cop or DA want to bust you, they don't just slap you with a " cut and dry" charge, ..... but they twist and manipulate a law or an act to MAKE you fit the criteria. Especialy if they have nothing on you, and want to lock you up.

so when a new bill comes out, we must think of every possible way it can be construed, there is no room for vagueness or generalities.

because at the end of the day, ... in effect were giving them the very tools to do away with us.

.... and you must ask yourself this ..... If someone is guilty of terrorist activity's why must they feel a need to surpass the court system ???

who is there to catch the innocent people falling through the cracks ??

This bill gives the government absolute power, they can lock anyone up, anytime and not have to answer to no one, ...... and we all know absolute power corrupts absolutely.



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
Link to the full bill:
assets.theatlantic.com...
Basically, any one the president lists.
Notice the loop hole. 48hr interrogation to determine once in military custody. But Intelligence agencies can keep as long as they want. Clock don't start till handed over to military.

I guess since Obama wanted this since May, as per speech, there's no chance he will veto it if it passes. Some one's getting betrayed here. Voters looking for change?



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Once again, we have to wonder why such a bill is only now being introduced, almost 9 nears after 9/11. They didn't feel it was necessary then, but now they do? I also wonder if the specific mention of Al Qaeda throughout the bill isn't something designed to give an illusion that this is bill would only impact Al Qaeda terrorists. Why mention Al Qaeda at all in the bil? Why not just say terrorists, period?

The way the bill reads, it appears this is nothing more than a way to target dissenters of the government OF ANY KIND, haul them off to the pokey for as long as they wish for any reason they please, refuse them the right to a lawyer, and subject them to "interrogation" by a group of people with "expertise" in interrogation techniques.



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Snarf
 


Who's not reading?

The title of the thread is "DISSENTERS To Be Detained as "Enemy Belligerents?"

The title doesn't have "protesters" in it and it's ended with a question mark. The OP is posing the question to ATS members whether or not we think this bill would effect dissenters in the U.S.



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Snarf
Dude, if you qualify as Privileged Belligerent according to Geneva Convention you get to be treated as a normal POW. If you don't qualify they call you Nonprivileged Belligerent, as in zero GC protection, whether or not you are belligerent. Don't you get that?

[edit on 9-3-2010 by pthena]



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Well what something says or not says can easily be kept A SECRET by the courts - consider these two ordered to testify for a grand jury (which means just the prosecutor) and they refused to testify, even though given immunity.

Then one got charged and released with an ankle bracelet (before conviction) and the other is being held under contempt of court - but all the court opinions are being kept SECRET. So the defense lawyer can not even see any of the court arguments in the case.

www.tcdailyplanet.net...

So then the journalist covering the case filed a motion to see the court records and that's where it stands.



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snarf



(8) PRIVILEGED BELLIGERENT.—The term ‘‘privileged belligerent’’ means an individual belonging to one of the eight categories enumerated in Article 4 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.


ARTICLE FOUR OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. (cut off, there is a lot more to read)
source for full article


This could be posted every page and many would still not read it, or perhaps it is too complex. Who knows?

Info Wars + Alex Jones = You better read and research every word.



posted on Mar, 9 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   
This is being completely taken out of context here. This is about that nonsense to do with trying the Terrorists in NYC. Its a political play against Obama's plans.

I don't approve of Obama but why do so many keep linking this back to him?

Obama's AG screwed up royally and this is about capitalizing on that error to drive the knife in a little deeper.

This law already exists in fact. Looks like they are trying to pass it a second time with altered wording to get around the Obama lie that the Tribunals are illegal when in fact Congress already made it legal.

By the way, the Marshall Law theory (insanity) has been around for over a hundred years if I'm not mistaken. When do you suppose they will do it?






top topics



 
88
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join