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.

 

Espionage Act: How the gov can engage in serious aggression against people of the united states

page: 2
38
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
I think it should be we who get to spy on them. Such bs.. thats it.. re-write it! Revised Constitution please!


previously hijacked

Dirty dealings are a part of US heritage...




posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by W3RLIED2
 


i realize the financial structure of the country is in danger, and that this has happened for a bunch of different reasons and that i'm not fond of it either. HOWEVER, suggesting revolution is not the answer. people die in revolutions, innocent people. i don't want some testerone-craniking 20 year old, endangering my family. i've been thru enough, dag nab it, and i'm losing my patience with this stuff.
edit on 12-12-2010 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by loveguy
 


do you have a government example that is a shining beacon of morailty for the US to model itself after? Proceed when you're ready. Not that it helps, as two wrongs NEVER make a right, but considering the realities of life on this planet, do you foresee any governement being able to deal honestly and frankly with anybody, ever? i don't.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by loveguy
 


do you have a government example that is a shining beacon of morailty for the US to model itself after? Proceed when you're ready. Not that it helps, as two wrongs NEVER make a right, but considering the realities of life on this planet, do you foresee any governement being able to deal honestly and frankly with anybody, ever? i don't.


Yes, I do.

Please have a peek at my link entitled "Previously Hijacked" in above post.

It's not a good OP, but I think my last post sums it up.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by loveguy
 


no you don't. there's no such banana. never has been, never will. govern ourselves, suggests mob rule. mob rule is not even remotely good government. mobs can be influenced to vote away your right to eat, breathe, or survive. mob rule can vote you into REAL slavery. and they will if given half the chance. if you're not the newest flavor of cool (all manipulated by hive mind of tv, and various other forms of mass media), you may just find yourself with protestors in front of your house, carting signs about how you need to move or perhaps be burnt at the stake, or hung from the closest oak tree, till dead.

mob mentality is scary as hell.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


While I dont mind it when people pull stuff up from History, please put it in the proper context. Mr. Debs was not arrested for excersising his 1st amendment right. Mr. Debs, who was a socialist and head of the Railway Union, effected a strike. The President had to send in Federal troops to break the strike and get the trains running. When Mr. Debs gave his "1st amendment speeach" it had nothing to do with the 1st amendment. His speech was to get people to resist the draft and to not support the war effort.

All this occured in the middle of WWI, which at the time the strike by the railroad, in addition to his actions to undermine the recruitment and drafting of soldiers, was in violation of the espionage and sedition act.


Debs appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court. In its ruling on Debs v. United States, the court examined several statements Debs had made regarding World War I and socialism. While Debs had carefully guarded his speeches in an attempt to comply with the Espionage Act, the Court found he still had the intention and effect of obstructing the draft and military recruitment. Among other things, the Court cited Debs' praise for those imprisoned for obstructing the draft. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. stated in his opinion that little attention was needed since Debs' case was essentially the same as that of Schenck v. United States, in which the Court had upheld a similar conviction.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by loveguy
 


no you don't. there's no such banana. never has been, never will. govern ourselves, suggests mob rule. mob rule is not even remotely good government. mobs can be influenced to vote away your right to eat, breathe, or survive. mob rule can vote you into REAL slavery. and they will if given half the chance. if you're not the newest flavor of cool (all manipulated by hive mind of tv, and various other forms of mass media), you may just find yourself with protestors in front of your house, carting signs about how you need to move or perhaps be burnt at the stake, or hung from the closest oak tree, till dead.

mob mentality is scary as hell.


You obviously did not read one link in the OP there, and then post here, this?
It's about the Articles of Confederation/States govern themselves-No FED to be depriving states of their right to rule themselves respectively.

Slumbering in blissful ignorance is far worse.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 

In answer to your question, a bit of background information on my end:
I grew up a military brat, having been associated with the US military and DOD for the better part of 28 years, so I know something about the handling of classified information, and who would have access to such.
The way it is suppose to work, is it is a 2 man team that works on classified information, as it is tightly controled, with heavy penalties for those who fail to follow protocal. So that means if the private first class, had the security clearance, and the access for such, the initial reports he pass on, would be very much valid. However, the question is, as he was thus went through NJD, (Non Judicial Discipline) for the first time around, his security clearance would have been pulled, and he should have never been allowed back into the area where he could get more access to that kind of information, but if not him, then the question must be asked who provided him or Wikileaks with that information. I can see him getting ahold of the military information, as he would, up until the time of his arrest, if it was in his job description, have access to the military documentation. That is quiet plausible, as there is no real way of knowing how much he was able to get ahold of.
However, the other question is who is leaking the State Department information that is now coming out? After all such would not be associated with military lines of communication and thus the military would really not be able to access that data. I do not believe it was just one private first class, but a whole lot more, that are providing and sending out such, affecting all levels of government.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by loveguy
 


i did, but you suggested you summed it up in your last post in that thread, most admirably, so i read what you thought was your best data on it. and your best data suggested we go back to not having the protection from the local mob. that's how slavery stayed around for so long. provided it benefitted some in society, others were willing to abide it and even use it to their benefit. do YOU want to be someone's slave?



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by undo
 

In answer to your question, a bit of background information on my end:
I grew up a military brat, having been associated with the US military and DOD for the better part of 28 years, so I know something about the handling of classified information, and who would have access to such.
The way it is suppose to work, is it is a 2 man team that works on classified information, as it is tightly controled, with heavy penalties for those who fail to follow protocal. So that means if the private first class, had the security clearance, and the access for such, the initial reports he pass on, would be very much valid. However, the question is, as he was thus went through NJD, (Non Judicial Discipline) for the first time around, his security clearance would have been pulled, and he should have never been allowed back into the area where he could get more access to that kind of information, but if not him, then the question must be asked who provided him or Wikileaks with that information. I can see him getting ahold of the military information, as he would, up until the time of his arrest, if it was in his job description, have access to the military documentation. That is quiet plausible, as there is no real way of knowing how much he was able to get ahold of.
However, the other question is who is leaking the State Department information that is now coming out? After all such would not be associated with military lines of communication and thus the military would really not be able to access that data. I do not believe it was just one private first class, but a whole lot more, that are providing and sending out such, affecting all levels of government.


I'd just like to say thanks for reminding me the topic of this thread.

I haven't been wholly focused on a single topic lately.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I can tell you took the time to read both of those through. I think the founders of our country can be a lesson to all of us. A few examples if I may:

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Franklin

"A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."
-Jefferson

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."
-also Jefferson

"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state."
- once again Jefferson

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
-Washington

"Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty."
-Washington


If you can not understand the truth in these statements, I truly feel sorry for you. Fear has taken root deep within you, and you are so scared to admit it you would rather take your anger out on me. And while I disagree with you on a very fundamental level, I will fight desperately for your right to believe what you will, because you are free to do so.

Don't demonize the testosterone filled men, or the anger filled women who plan on taking action. You may be tired of it, but we still have the rest of our lives in front of us. I intend to spend mine as happy and free as I can. The only way to do that is to take this stand.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by loveguy
 


i did, but you suggested you summed it up in your last post in that thread, most admirably, so i read what you thought was your best data on it. and your best data suggested we go back to not having the protection from the local mob. that's how slavery stayed around for so long. provided it benefitted some in society, others were willing to abide it and even use it to their benefit. do YOU want to be someone's slave?


Sorry about bringing this item into this thread.

We are all slaves because we serve under the guise of monetary accumulation for our right to live "free."



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by W3RLIED2
 


so what if you're younger than me! what difference should that make? you may die in a week from now, or i may die in a few seconds from now! age, in this particular example, is irrelevant other than how it applies to the desire to live dangerously. and in that sense, women and children have historically had to pay for the dangerous ways in which men conduct their businesses and governments. don't condescend to me, i've had more hardship in my life than you probably ever will. i know what it means to suffer.

secondly, we need the laws protecting us from our own government BUT we also need the laws protecting us from each other, because just 'tween you and me, i KNOW what a bunch of people can do to another human being they may disagree with on even the smallest of matters.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by loveguy
 


i said REAL slavery, the kind where they don't have to pay you a cent, can rape your women folk, force you to work by government writ, whether you want to or are even capable of it, or starve you to death as they see fit. that's real slavery.

it doesn't absolve mistakes that have been made since, nor does it suggest there are no problems now. rather i'm suggesting that mob rule with universal media platforms, is "witch hunts" on steroids.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Like I said, you're FREE to believe as you wish. As am I.

With that being said don't ever dictate to me again about how much hardship I've been through, ever. Yeah you're older than me, is that your reasoning behind treating me as inferior to you? And you make it seem like I was attacking your age. I wasn't.

You're angry at the wrong group of people! Who do you think passed the laws and the bills and the bailouts that put us in the God awful situation in the first place?

I know where I'll be on July 4th. You just keep hiding and seeking safety with in the government.

I CHOOSE LIBERTY.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   
CITE-
18 USC Sec. 798 02/01/2010

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 37 - ESPIONAGE AND CENSORSHIP

-HEAD-
Sec. 798. Disclosure of classified information

-STATUTE-
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes,
transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person,
or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or
interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign
government to the detriment of the United States any classified
information -
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code,
cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any
foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or
repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or
planned for use by the United States or any foreign government
for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the
United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence
from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the
same to have been obtained by such processes -

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both.
(b) As used in subsection (a) of this section -
The term "classified information" means information which, at the
time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national
security, specifically designated by a United States Government
Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;
The terms "code," "cipher," and "cryptographic system" include in
their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of
secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method
used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents,
significance, or meanings of communications;
The term "foreign government" includes in its meaning any person
or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any
faction, party, department, agency, bureau, or military force of or
within a foreign country, or for or on behalf of any government or
any person or persons purporting to act as a government within a
foreign country, whether or not such government is recognized by
the United States;
The term "communication intelligence" means all procedures and
methods used in the interception of communications and the
obtaining of information from such communications by other than the
intended recipients;
The term "unauthorized person" means any person who, or agency
which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories
set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or
by the head of a department or agency of the United States
Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage
in communication intelligence activities for the United States.
(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the furnishing, upon
lawful demand, of information to any regularly constituted
committee of the Senate or House of Representatives of the United
States of America, or joint committee thereof.
(d)(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall
forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State
law -
(A) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds
the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of
such violation; and
(B) any of the person's property used, or intended to be used,
in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission
of, such violation.

(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a
conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the
defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in
paragraph (1).
(3) Except as provided in paragraph (4), the provisions of
subsections (b), (c), and (e) through (p) of section 413 of the
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21
U.S.C. 853(b), (c), and (e)-(p)), shall apply to -
(A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;
(B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and
(C) any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to
such property,

if not inconsistent with this subsection.
(4) Notwithstanding section 524(c) of title 28, there shall be
deposited in the Crime Victims Fund established under section 1402
of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601) all amounts
from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining
after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by
law.
(5) As used in this subsection, the term "State" means any State
of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States.

-SOURCE-
(Added Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 655, Sec. 24(a), 65 Stat. 719; amended
Pub. L. 103-322, title XXXIII, Sec. 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994,
108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 103-359, title VIII, Sec. 804(a), Oct. 14,
1994, 108 Stat. 3439; Pub. L. 104-294, title VI, Sec. 602(c), Oct.
11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3503.)

-COD-
CODIFICATION
Another section 798 was renumbered section 798A of this title.


-MISC1-
AMENDMENTS
1996 - Subsec. (d)(5). Pub. L. 104-294 struck out "the Trust
Territory of the Pacific Islands," after "Puerto Rico,".
1994 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103-322 substituted "fined under this
title" for "fined not more than $10,000" in concluding provisions.
Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 103-359 added subsec. (d).

-End-

Noone knew this was coming, huh?



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by W3RLIED2
 


That would be the people who are responsible for the predicament this country is in. We became apathetic and failed to hold our elected officals accountable. We allowed them to spend like it was going out of style, while we did other things.

The reason we are in the boat we are in is because of us, not them.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by W3RLIED2
 


i choose liberty too, but if some guy with a machine gun busts in my house and tries to shoot my family because it's a revolution and white people are the new "confederates" just cause they're white, i'm gonna be all shades of pissed off!!!!!!!!

i'm fed up with being told how this country doesn't have any freedom, yet we still have more freedom than most countries on the planet. i've read what happens in russia. i know. i studied it. i know what happens in china, venezula, cuba, south africa, islamic nations, and even europe. this is winding up to the same scenario. i don't want to wake up one morning and find out i can't read my bible because the people of the state have decided it's a subversive document for dumb hicks. i don't want to wake up to find out i'm going to have to pay for the sins of other people who i not only don't know and but never knew, i'm gonna be all shades of pissed off!!!!!!!




posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


you might try asking any body you know who is or was in the military, if they think it would be possible for a private first class to have access to top secret documents. then let us know the answer. i'm curious why anyone would believe that in the first place.



Yes it is not very believable at all. Folks have just gobbled this up without thinking. And the missing puzzel parts have never been exsplained.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by suigeneris
 


If I am not mistaken 793 and 794 are violated as well. There is no protection under the pentagon papers or media outlet argument either for what occured.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join