No Western Govt Has Ever Claimed The power To Do This! The King Of England! Not Hitler! Not Stalin!

page: 5
252
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


And who are you proposing that needs to be limited at this point? We the people, or they the elite? Because personally, I don't see that collectively, "we the people" are doing anything that needs limited.

Here's what I do see though...
1. A government that is spending out of control
2. A military industrial complex controlled by a fixed banking system that is running amuck throughout foreign lands and giving Americans a bad name.
3. An economy that has been abused by the Fed and Wall Street.
4. A country that is occupying territories while attempting to expand an empire during economic crisis
5. A country that has its nose in very deep turmoil surrounding the middle east and vying for political control where anti-imperialist sentiment is high.
6. A country that is nearly broke which will no longer provide basic needs for citizens. Instead, it gives more money to the one's who put the country in financial turmoil.
7. A country that is allowing its government (TSA) to molest its citizens while pretending to protect them on airlines.
8. A country that is utterly confused by purposely designed divisions in politics
9. A country that has 3% of the worlds population while having 25% of the world's prison population
10. A country that has the worst mortgage crisis in the Industrialized world
11. A country that is utterly dependent upon foreign oil
12. A country which has stopped manufacturing
13. A country which has outsourced its labor to foreign economies.
14. A country that has borrowed TRILLIONS from supposed "Communist" regimes.
15. A country that is has sold 13% of its land ownership to Saudi Arabian interests.
16. A country which has sold commercial licenses and zones to China in all 50 states.
17. A country that is involved in 2 wars and world policing.
18. A country that allowed a foreign corporation to pollute its waters and poison its citizens via oil spill.
19. A country that cannot explain why the animals are dying all around them.
20. A country that provides virtually no support during natural disasters (Katrina, Oil spill, people getting sick)
21. A country that regularly lies to its citizens.
22. A country that owns all the media outlets so that they can control information. (Internet Kill Switch)
23. A country that purposefully sold its soul to NAFTA
24. A country that purposefully litigated giving big business more control and less regulation. Telecom act of 1996. Oh, and since then, its only gotten worse with the deregulation and tax breaks.
25. A country that voted in a president who is TIED TO THE ECONOMIC CRISIS by way of affiliation with GOLDMAN AND SACHS.

Now clearly, I could continue this until I have taken up the next 10 pages of this thread. However, I am making a point here to show that there seems to only be one group in this country that could use some limitations, and I don't think its the American people.
edit on 9-3-2011 by Qcuailon because: to add...




posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinder
If they are guilty of a crime, they deserve a trial.

If they are POW's they deserve to be treated according to the Geneva Convention.

But calling them Terrorists in order to avoid both a trial and the Geneva Convention is wrong and it clearly defines who the real terrorists are.


They are not POWs. They are "Unlawful Combatants". There is a big difference. They did not fight in a recognizable uniform (most of them were in their own personal civilian clothes), they did not always keep their weapons shown (some fought with IEDs, etc), and they fought on behalf of a government that was not internationally recognized (the Taliban). These criteria eliminate them from POW status upon capture.

Here is what is said about unlawful combatants on Wikipedia: (en.wikipedia.org...)


A combatant who does not qualify for POW status in an international conflict, under the provisions of the IV Geneva Convention, the combatant must be treated humanely, and if the detaining power wishes to try the combatant for breaches of the law, then the combatant should receive a "fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention", to decide on guilt and punishment.


So according to them, the convention requires that a "fair and regular trial" be conducted. Considering this is a military matter and not a civilian matter, a military tribunal could be argued as "fair and regular".

If the tribunal is conducted and the president signs some sort of confirmation of the verdict and enforces the verdict, then it could also be argued that it is a "fair and regular trial". But if this new bill does indeed give the president the right to completely judge the accused, then I would say that "fair and regular" just got thrown out of the _

Don't get me wrong. I think "fair and regular" got tossed out years ago. But even when you give the US Govt the benefit of the doubt, and you let them have their little legal gray areas, this latest development is still completely overboard.

Someday the citizens of the US will reap what their government has sewn. There wont need to be any "inside job" conspiracies. There will just be victims. Someday, justice will be done.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 


Exactly.

And also don't see anywhere where it says the judicial process is to be denied anyone. The whole document MUST be read, not bits and pieces thrown together in a manner that suits fears.
edit on 9-3-2011 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


not entirely correct thats not how that whole saying plays out even in the thelema books.....Do what though wilst SHALL(shall is crucial its not will for shall has a meaning of its in the future but has been done already) be the whole of the law. But love under will or something to that effect. I like to hear people quote that as much as John 3:16 for there is a whole lot more to that saying when taken into the full context of what JESUS was teaching.

but yes to do what you will regardless of love will rot your soul.For if your not in love your not in the light and the light is good, therefore you can only be in the opposite with is death and darkness. I could go into a long off topic stuff about that

good post here. I am in agreement with most ...Holy cow when is this madness gonna stop. The simple fix to this is remove the power of executive branch to make laws. Leave it to Legislature thats how it was designed....This is the only thing I want the tea party to do is to restore the balance of power in washington. not restore balance of dems/repub but to restore America to the constitution...easiest way would be to cut off the funding to the executive branch...until they play ball. What really needs to happen sadly is chaos...I am not advocating just well to use an example....when you septic tank is completely clogged you have to pull the tank out flip in on its side hose it out with water shake it around then empty the water and set back into its whole. You can only use septic cleaner for so long to the filth starts backing up into your house and killing you. Thats how I see our government has become a plague on itself, cant even function properly it so screwed up. Its getting time to clean out the crap because curruption is not a problem thats just here its growing and spilling over.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Stalin did:



Maria Tchebotareva

Trying to feed her four hungry children during the massive 1932-1933 famine, the peasant mother allegedly stole three pounds of rye from her former field—confiscated by the state as part of collectivization. Soviet authorities sentenced her to ten years in the Gulag. When her sentence expired in 1943, it was arbitrarily extended until the end of the war in 1945. After her release, she was required to live in exile near her Gulag camp north of the Arctic Circle, and she was not able to return home until 1956, after the death of Stalin. Maria Tchebotareva never found her children after her release.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by yeahright
 


Exactly.

And also don't see anywhere where it says the judicial process is to be denied anyone. The whole document MUST be read, not bits and pieces thrown together in a manner that suits your fears.


Not denied, but per executive branch's discretion can be voided on recommendations from the SoS, Joint chiefs of staff, relevant agencies, and the director of intelligence depending on any national security issues.

In other words, if they decide to keep someone detained for life, despite any claim of innocence, or affirming ruling of innocence it is now LEGALLY in THEIR discretion to continue detainment as long as they wish.

Take off the partisan blinders and see it for what it is.

Bow before your new King before it is too late for you.




posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
What can you do about this kind of thing? A trend started by the "signingest" president in the history of the US, I might add, George W. Bush.

Don't vote Republicrat in 2012!

Don't vote Democrublican either!

Vote Ron Paul!

Better yet, sign up to do campaigning for Ron Paul. Ron Paul or an equivalent in 2012, without fail. It may be your country's last chance.
edit on 9-3-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
1984? 1984?
We were so past 1984 in 1984 it was pathetic.
And, in case anyone forgot, JFK signed an executive order, shortly before he was assassinated, to do away with the fed and let the treasury cut our money. It was as legal an executive order as anything Bush or Obama signed.
It has never been acted upon to this day, and it has never been repealed.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 


All a scant few of us in this thread have been asking for is the specific reference in this Executive Order that pertains to holding onto detainees beyond a determination of Not Guilty.

Apparently, no one can do that?

Hey, maybe it's there. Mea culpa, I'm not finding it. My personal preference is to withhold umbrage until I'm sure. I see little difference between blindly following TPTB and blindly following the latest rantophile who invented an issue. Show me that's not what's happening. I'll be grateful.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Before this thread I honestly had no idea what Ron Paul was like, other than everyone seemed to think he was a bit loony.

To say the least, I now think he could be the best hope for America at this point.


Most of his ideas are a bit out there, but his way forward sounds much better than what any (R) or (D) has been spouting recently.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 


If you can't read the law, and understand it, the implications and what it means, then no one here can help you.

The relevant sections are self-explanatory, fairly straight forward, and clearly explain the intent... while long winded it is all there.

I summarized it in my previous post, and if you still can't see it, then you simply don't want to.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
And some say Obama is "better." Better than Bush (who never gave himself such power). Transparency - heh - I guess it's transparent that this president is WORSE.

Really, Humans need to take over this planet. Again, I suggest my pieces linked in my sig.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by RadicalRebel

Originally posted by yeahright
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Anyway, here's the link I found to the Executive Order. Haven't read it yet, but will at some point today. I'm offering it up to see if there are any specifics in there that would make sense to discuss.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


i just read it, at first it doesnt even seem like a legitimate source, nor does it read like any EO i have ever seen before, it does however not mention anything like the video and does seem to support Executive Order 13492, i dont have alaw degree but i would have loved to add it HERE if i thought it was relevant.
If anyone can dispute this and give me reason to add it to my site please do


All you people are doing is exactly what they want, fighting amongst yourselves over half truths and convenient lies created by the media and partial truths used by indidviduals here to create a reality for thier comments.

Again, after reading, the ENTIRE document and subsequent EO 13492, i have found ZERO correlation to these documents and the video posted from FOX news...really...

STOP allowing ourselves to be divided by these issues, thats how we lose...

Please, can anyone, provide PROOF (not speculation) within these documents to back up the claims made in the video?



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
This just proves more and more the U.S. is preparing for a road to possible WW3.The world is growing very dangerous.Obama has learned as well as Bush that the threat from terrorist of something much worse than 9/11 is real.However one can see this government is overstepping power.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 


Okay, takes magic goggles. Got it.

You can't help, that's all you needed to say.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by RadicalRebel

STOP allowing ourselves to be divided by these issues, thats how we lose...

Please, can anyone, provide PROOF (not speculation) within these documents to back up the claims made in the video?


For those in a perpetual state of immediate and unequivocal denial... The simplest path to PROOF is the easiest....

STOP reading it, there is no need, refrain from further discussion and just wait for actual PROOF.

Actions speak louder than words.

In time you will see how this new executive order/law will be used, it was written and passed for reasons vital to national security... Be results oriented, be calm, and watch as the innocent remain detained, transferred to foreign nations for interrogations and torture and returned to Guantanamo for continued and possibly indefinite detention.

Pray you are never abducted on suspicion of involvement with terrorism, or ANY other issues considered a vital national security threat, real or fabricated... They now have arbitrary and discretionary powers the most radical rulers and dictatorships of our world would admire immensely.

You want proof?

It is coming, and soon.



edit on 9-3-2011 by Fractured.Facade because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by morder1
 


Read this online the other night.. DISGUSTING. America Hang your head in SHAME

By someone who used to love America.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Qcuailon
 


May I add one more to your list?

26. A government that continues to disparage and maintain in "illegal" status a natural remedy that threatens pharmaceutical interests, which has never killed anyone in 5000 years of Human use (unlike EVERY "drug" on the market) and can treat a great many things, from stress to cancer, yanking productive citizens (mostly on a racial basis) into the prison-industrial complex to the profit of that "industry."



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


reply to post by Fractured.Facade
 


Ah. So the proof is In The Future. Which you can see. So, some paranormal ability is required beyond the letter of the order, as there apparently is nothing in the letter of the order that proclaims detainees can be indefinitely held beyond a determination of Not Guilty. Now we know. See? You were a help.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.





new topics
top topics
 
252
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join