9/11 Truthers [COULD BE] Locked Up For Life under New US Law.

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

Hi Spartan,
As I have already posted to Zanti, I was talking about the G20 conference in Pittsburgh, (lack of sleep through gigging over the weekend on my part). Anyway, the AP's were most likely copstibules, and could well created a situation in some way, enough to make an excuse for a show of force, but I do think that the force was already there. On the ground the police chief messages were obviously recordings, and the electronic device used, without public precedence was/is dangerous,, so I do think that the American constitution was violated.

Well, therein lies the difficulty, Law Enforcement believes it is allowed to send them in, under the guise of searching for criminals, subversives, and real danger.

For the most part, the majority of them are sent in, just for that exactly.

It is however, when this is abused, because it is usually done because they expect violence, because someone called a tip line, or known prior arressted protesters are present, which gives reason, vague as it is to do this sort of nasty action, which is highly suspect in most cases.

I just recently saw a good movie, which tried to depict a regular protest, of the now infamous World Trade Organization, called Battle in Seattle.

The entire movie however, was a propaganda piece, it was only half true.

Battle in Seattle - trailer


In this instance the politicians used Law Enforcement as an aggressor.

[edit on 15-3-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

reply to post by MaxBlack


But which 911 Conspiracy Theory is the Original!!
I think there are as many 911 Conspiracy Theories as the number 911

But my theory is:
A bunch *snip*were not happy at the way the US treats arabs in
middle east, the constant medling with the Mid-East and of couse the
US unrelenting support for Israel with Money and Military Hardware.
Then theres the US trying to enforce their Ideals and values on the Mid-East.
All they wanted to do was show the US what it feels like to loose a few
buildings and people for a change.

I like this one, because it's simple and it has Motive. And doesn't require
the insder expertise of a Hundred or more to make it all work.


(removed offensive terminology)
Mod Note: Excessive Quoting – Please Review This Link




[edit on Tue Mar 16 2010 by Jbird]

Dontcha just love it when all the puzzle pieces start coming together... er hate it?

I totally agree with the members who say we should pool money and make a big ATS commune together... we should use my place if only it were bigger!

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Exactly, KJ

If there was a massive civil unrest or revolution, who do you think would be the better faction to take over essential infrastructure? Our government! That is who. The alternative would be unorganized gangs of hot-headed, uneducated idiots that would seal our fate for good.

Our government is not perfect, but it has saved our asses so many times in the past, we would not be here, nor would we have the civil liberties to allow people to post such crap.

I am really getting sick of listening to the rants of hippocritical , self-righteous people who freely piss while wearing Uncle Sam's diapers.

The real conspiracy here is the massive rot from within that is more of a threat to the survival of America's freedom and values than our enemies could ever conjure up. That fact alone, friends, should scare the living hell out of you, and if that rot is allowed to go malignant, then the loss of your civil rights won't even make the top 10 list.

This isn't anything new... Gov's have been doing this crap since ages ago. If you do not believe or take the majority's view on things... You will get punished/bashed/worse.

In recent years just the label of 'terrorist' has made even the common folk think twice about every single move or action they take.

Theres a label for everyone these days. If your a problem to someone up above (not god of course, or etc) then you will find that you have a ton of labels that somehow got stuck to you.

First off I want to say I believe these places exist. Maybe some of you could help solve this LIma,Ohio puzzle.
The FEMA camp in Lima,Ohio has been mentioned and talked about on many sites I have been to. This site is a puzzle to me. I grew up in that area of where the camp is supposed to be. I pinpointed the location on google earth. Other sites have given directions to the camp.A buddy of mine and I scoured the area and trust me there is nothing there but fields in all directions for two miles. Unless this thing is underground it's not there.
We were really in to finding this camp so any ideas like is it not built yet,did someone just get this site wrong would be great.

reply to post by rick1


You did not find it because they do not exist. We have been hearing about these FEMA camps for at least 9 years now. In 9 years, no one has found a working one, no one has been put into one, no one has come forward to say they work in one. Does that not tip your hand a bit?

The actual legislation says nothing about 9/11 or "truthers" and the part of the OP about FEMA camps is just a rehash of a decade old rumor that has yet, in 9 years, to provide one tiny shred of evidence.

Of course, the last time I pointed this out, it was removed for being off topic...so maybe there is a new conspiracy there for people to blindly chase after.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by argonfritz


Hello, I am not deleting anything if that is what you'r implying!
And this is about your right to question the OS and in overall have own oppinions at all.. It's not okey to be put in jail for pointing out 'flawes' in an official investigation....If it is a cover up or just plain bad work by the commity is something else..





[Mod Edit - replace quote with reply to tab]

[edit on 16/3/2010 by Sauron]

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Bam! No offense to anyone else, but you're most likely the more logically rational thinker that's posted so far.

I don't want to go on a tangent here, but I have to say that the bill has been misquoted.

First, let's take a look at what they are saying initially can be done from this bill.

SEC. 2. PLACEMENT OF SUSPECTED UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENTS IN MILITARY CUSTODY.

(a) Military Custody Requirement- Whenever within the United States, its territories, and possessions, or outside the territorial limits of the United States, an individual is captured or otherwise comes into the custody or under the effective control of the United States who is suspected of engaging in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners through an act of terrorism, or by other means in violation of the laws of war, or of purposely and materially supporting such hostilities, and who may be an unprivileged enemy belligerent, the individual shall be placed in military custody for purposes of initial interrogation and determination of status in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

If you're not familiar with war, this isn't a vague condition. This is point blank if you are engaging in a hostile action or are working with the insurgents who are engaging in the act then you are guilty. Don't let that word "terrorism" impare your thought. You have to look at the next part where it says "in violation of the laws of war". If you're not understanding where I'm coming from, please ask me to break it down Barney style for you. Not trying to insult anyone's intelligence.

Okay, so I'm going on a tangent, but I'm kind of feeling a fire in my belly when everything that comes through congress gets blown up and misunderstood. Let's take a look at what the unprivledged and high-value detainees.

(9) UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENT- The term ‘unprivileged enemy belligerent’ means an individual (other than a privileged belligerent) who--

(A) has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners;

(B) has purposely and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or

(C) was a part of al Qaeda at the time of capture.

A refers to a hostile act against us or our allies. Shouldn't need to explain that. B refers to supply munitions, supplies or intel to the enemy. C is self explaining.

(2) CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION OF INDIVIDUALS AS HIGH-VALUE DETAINEES- The regulations required by this subsection shall include criteria for designating an individual as a high-value detainee based on the following:

(A) The potential threat the individual poses for an attack on civilians or civilian facilities within the United States or upon United States citizens or United States civilian facilities abroad at the time of capture or when coming under the custody or control of the United States.

(B) The potential threat the individual poses to United States military personnel or United States military facilities at the time of capture or when coming under the custody or control of the United States.

(C) The potential intelligence value of the individual.

(D) Membership in al Qaeda or in a terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda.

(E) Such other matters as the President considers appropriate.


A refers to a high potential for engaging in hostility against us or our allies. "Potential threat" is a term that can be misunderstood easily, but it actually is refering to the fact that the high-value prisoner is going to or planning to make an attack in the near future. B refers to the same thing as A. C is self explaining as is D. E...I'll admit that it's a load of BS, but that's a whole different thing I don't want to get in to at the moment.

Forgot about privledged.

(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.

Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

All of this explains what a privledged prisoner is.

There are clear differences between them all. They are defined clearly. In no way does this say anything about truthers. The only reason a truther would be in a mud hole is if by whatever means you're handing over military operational intelligence to the enemy.

Last thing before I end this.

SEC. 5. DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL OF UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENTS.

An individual, including a citizen of the United States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent under section 3(c)(2) in a manner which satisfies Article 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners in which the individual has engaged, or which the individual has purposely and materially supported, consistent with the law of war and any authorization for the use of military force provided by Congress pertaining to such hostilities.

Yes, this says what it says. You can be taken in to custody without criminal charges and trial, but you will be interrogated AND under article 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War your fate AFTER the hostilities against us or our allies has ended, if they feel you are not a part of any category of art. 4 but engaged in a belligerant act, you are protected by the Geneva Convention from being wronged until your status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Honestly, if you don't trust anything that on paper that's beneficial, why would you trust something that you think will be harmful? Understanding is essential, but most times misunderstanding happens.

Please, I want to hear what y'all think. I tried to put this in words as best I can from the understanding I have from the civilian and military world. Kinda helps to think on both sides.

How reality imitates art............

reply to post by ChemBreather


I'll comment. My ex husband was appointed by Bush to an executive position at Homeland Security. He faked his security clearance 30 years ago, after the Navy relieved him of duty, he's a deadbeat, still owes 13 years of child support, all his friends at the defense department are cronies, and he hasn't seen his own daughter since she was 7 years old. Total reversal of who you would expect to be in charge.

With him in charge, and all his cronie friends, yes, they would suspend the Constitution and do away with all of us. The people who work in national security and defense are usually criminals of some sort themselves.

Man this topic is off-the-wall! I can't believe how much America is changing, our country is no longer (AT ALL) what our founding fathers had in mind, nor the people who moved here to help build it. As an intelligent civilization you would think our main priority would be to find another host planet to move to before mother earth (or a meteor) wipes us off the map. But instead we work our butt off our whole life to give it to someone who-doesn't deserve it.
We need to find a way off this planet if we want to survive as a species, and no one cares, money is all that glimmers to the people who are in control of everything, wow.

From the very first post:

These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:...

So, what is so special, now, that our concern should be elevated?

reply to post by AceOfAces


The Jews went to camps.
Millions of them.
And no one stopped them or saved them or intervened (much).
If they create the right conditions, (i.e. war usually), then ... well, putting people in camps, it has happened before.

Awareness maybe, could be the key.. enough awareness?

Ithink that all of these so called ''security bills'' are all made up to progressivly take away to ALL ameican citizens there long rights!!!!1 If this bill passes I think that ats will be closed and all of us who are members will be targets for the fbi.. This is really messed up s...t!

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz

From the very first post:

These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:...

So, what is so special, now, that our concern should be elevated?

Hi Squirrel,
Is this not about McCains bill, (current) which smacks of making legitimate, amongst other things, all those little Lear jets whizzing around other countries and picking up suspects to plonk them somewhere in the US or wherever to be detained without charges, and also to be interrogated. The other important thing is in the wording "materially supplying" which can be applied to just the spoken word. In fact, this could even be applied to a 9/11 situation where a material witness could be detained. Echofox put forward a good analysis of what the bill says, but not entirely as to how it could be interpreted. You could call this bill "The Pinocchio bill" rather than McCains bill.



[edit on 17-3-2010 by smurfy]

9/11 Truthers? There's a new term I hadn't seen before.
Which is it? The ones with the truth, or the ones who think they have the truth, or the ones who think they know the ones who have the truth?
This is like saying the great plague of 1310 was caused by aliens or something.
When we find out it was actually fleas on rats it makes this whole conspirator thing make sense.