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.

 

Congress Will Vote To Declare World War 3

page: 10
94
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 02:29 AM
link   
If we are discussing sources and creditability. Why not look to the obvious, if you check the Library of Congress, you'll see that for April 14, 2011, there was no House Resolution numbered HR 1540 tabled that day, or any day during the 1st Session of the 112th Congress. If someone can find it in the Library of Congress please let me know. But so far I've yet to see the Bill in this source. I know many readers and posters will be somewhat skeptical about any source being from "The Government", but if the Bill was tabled and voted on, then it has to appear in the Library of Congress.

If anyone is interested the link is thomas.loc.gov... this is my first time posting a link so please bare with me.

P.S. If you notice the link I present dose not end in a ".org, .com, or .us" suffix, if you ask any journalist or university teacher, you'll find that those suffix websites tend to be treated as suspect for source material.




posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:56 AM
link   
I personally think that the USA and the people in it think that they are somehow world beaters. In a third world War the USA will be lucky to come out on top of the dung heap again. People tend to forget that the three most dangerous armies in the world are allied Russia, China, and North Korea. When you look at that line up USA & CO suddenly look very very venerable.
Cheers



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 05:57 AM
link   
This sounds like a lot of non independent sources and general craziest.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 06:47 AM
link   
Wow that crazy. A couple of months ago I heard Webster Tarpley say there will be WW3 by the end of 2012. I hope it doesnt come true but he has predicted things b4 and they came true. I hope its not true or comes to surpass.If you are religious we need to start praying now.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by OG_SWAGGA_KING
 


Sure another Religious War, just what the world needs right now. Sorry i dont buy the God story anymore. It's the Narcissistic Ego's who've created the bible and are laughing at everyone from behind closed doors as they unleash their evil fetish for mayhem chaos and mental delusion upon the earth. If you think they're here to make your life happy and fun think again, they're here to destroy you. If you think otherwise, then you probably deserve what's coming..



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by SNAFU211
If we are discussing sources and creditability. Why not look to the obvious, if you check the Library of Congress, you'll see that for April 14, 2011, there was no House Resolution numbered HR 1540 tabled that day, or any day during the 1st Session of the 112th Congress. If someone can find it in the Library of Congress please let me know. But so far I've yet to see the Bill in this source. I know many readers and posters will be somewhat skeptical about any source being from "The Government", but if the Bill was tabled and voted on, then it has to appear in the Library of Congress.

If anyone is interested the link is thomas.loc.gov... this is my first time posting a link so please bare with me.

P.S. If you notice the link I present dose not end in a ".org, .com, or .us" suffix, if you ask any journalist or university teacher, you'll find that those suffix websites tend to be treated as suspect for source material.


Here is H.R. 1540 in pdf from the library of congress ...

HR 1540 PDF

thomas.loc.gov ...

US Government Printing Office

Google: hr 1540 ...

as others have said I cannot find section 1034 but there are numerous amendments to US code 1034 of title 10, a bunch of legalese. (edit: section 1034 is in the Chairman's Mark version when bill went into committee and markup session held on May 11th)

The Hill article is dated 5/11/11 today is 5/17/11 could it be they withdrew section 1034 as requested by the Democrats that sent Chairman McKeon the letter? (edit: No see post below)

On 5/11 the last action on the bill was "Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held." (edit: this is key)

(see post below apparently section 1034 is in the bill with Chairman's Marks have links from a *.gov site)

edit: To those doubting this exist. Once "The Hill" article was posted that pretty much confirmed authenticity of it. Do you think "The Hill" is just going to risk its reputation making something up? Where did "The Hill" get that letter? Did they just pull it out of their @ss? And what about the bill they reference - do you think someone spent an all nighter faking the bill? You guys need to create some new neural pathways the ones you have aren't working too well.
edit on 17-5-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-5-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-5-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 07:52 AM
link   
All right guys how is this for a source ..

searching Google for this
hr 1540 chairman's mark

revealed this ...

armedservices.house.gov ... (edit: better link in next post)

which shows section 1034 as linked to on this thread previously

(Note this pdf took a long time to get from that site but once you have it just search for "1034" and it will jump to appropriate section.)

My thinking on this, and I could be wrong since I don't know how all this stuff works, is that the bill was introduced on April 14th. The last action on the bill was "Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held". That action was on May 11 the same day the "Hill" article was written. Searching for HR 1540 revealed something called "Chairman's Marks" which shows section 1034. My thinking is the bill was changed in committee to include section 1034 on May 11th and word of it got out to places like "The Hill". So I have only found this HR 1540 with "Chairman's Marks" on a government site ".gov" in the place I linked to above.
edit on 17-5-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-5-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
My thinking was correct ..

armedservices.house.gov ... (literally from the "horses" mouth)

Armed Services Committee approved this version of the bill called Chairman's Marks. The link above has link to a pdf with section 1034 as posted already. The Chairman of this committee Buck McKeon is the one who introduced the bill.

Consider this fully sourced/credible now.

Edit: You naysayers really get me. Did any of you even bother really searching for this
Now all that is left is the interpretation of this section. The ACLU and many Democrats find the wording troubling and so do I. Now why is this in a "Highly Speculative" section? It exists. I proved it. Many others are concerned by the language - that is proven. What is "highly speculative" about it now? The title is a little over the top - maybe. But this is no longer a speculation of its existence .. so I think .....

This needs to be moved from Skunk Works now!

or will it be left to die a nice quiet death? OP you really should have sourced this directly from the armed services committee using the link I found then it wouldn't have been dismissed so out of hand. Now there is little chance anyone here will see it anymore. All the naysayers will go on thinking they safely dismissed this whole thing. Deny ignorance my @ss!!
edit on 17-5-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-5-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-5-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-5-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by MegaMind
 


Fine. But the question is does Section 1034 give the President brand new widespread unilateral powers that he doesn't already have? I.e., is this really something new? Please explain specifically how this bill gives the president new powers he never had before to start wars.

As far as I knew, the president always has had the power to unilaterally send troops into conflict without the specific consent of a congressional vote. A congressional vote is needed to declare war, but the War Powers Act allows the president to send troops into conflict for 90 days without the specific approval of the congress.

Also, does this bill really mean -- as the OP says -- That Congress WILL declare World War 3? Please connect the dots for me as to how this bill SPECIFICALLY will be used to declare World War 3.


edit on 5/17/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Section 1034 of HR 1540 Chariman's Marks



SEC. 1034 [Log #215]. AFFIRMATION OF ARMED CONFLICT
WITH AL-QAEDA, THE TALIBAN, AND ASSOCIATED FORCES.
Congress affirms that—
(1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad;
(2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note);
(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who—
(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or (B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and
(4) the President’s authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.


I would argue that the above "affirmation" allows the president to use military force with any nation that is said to be providing aid to Al Qaeda and to detain people indefinitely "until the termination of hostilities" or IMO forever. That by passing this law the President may pursue the war with any nation the President says is aiding Al Qaeda with no further approval from congress. Hell we just attacked Lybia with no approval from congress either so I don't know that it changes business as usual but it certainly gives approval to pursue the "war on terror" as the president sees fit even if that means attacking other nations.

Pakistan would now be considered such a nation would it not? Harboring Osama? Attacking Pakistan could set off WW3 could it not?

Edit: Soylent, you can let go of my hand now.
edit on 17-5-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-5-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by CranialSponge
This "bill" has already been passed...

It's called Homeland Security.


Hoemland security gives the Prez the power to declare war without having to go to congress? Seriously? If its true thats something straight out of the enabling act, not that it matters if the congress is merely a bought off proxy. At least the Nazis were upfront and you cant exactly accuse Hitler of having been deceitfull in his publications.
edit on 17-5-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   

edit on 17-5-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: double



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by MegaMind
 


Fine. But the question is does Section 1034 give the President brand new widespread unilateral powers that he doesn't already have? I.e., is this really something new? Please explain specifically how this bill gives the president new powers he never had before to start wars.

As far as I knew, the president always has had the power to unilaterally send troops into conflict without the specific consent of a congressional vote. A congressional vote is needed to declare war, but the War Powers Act allows the president to send troops into conflict for 90 days without the specific approval of the congress.

Also, does this bill really mean -- as the OP says -- That Congress WILL declare World War 3? Please connect the dots for me as to how this bill SPECIFICALLY will be used to declare World War 3.



I believe you are right. It is affirming a continuation of the current, vaguely defined 'war on terror'. The OP's headline is sensationalistic, as it is meant to generate traffic to his BLOG which I have no desire to visit.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by MegaMind
My thinking was correct ..

armedservices.house.gov ... (literally from the "horses" mouth)

Armed Services Committee approved this version of the bill called Chairman's Marks. The link above has link to a pdf with section 1034 as posted already. The Chairman of this committee Buck McKeon is the one who introduced the bill.

Consider this fully sourced/credible now.

Edit: You naysayers really get me. Did any of you even bother really searching for this
Now all that is left is the interpretation of this section. The ACLU and many Democrats find the wording troubling and so do I. Now why is this in a "Highly Speculative" section? It exists. I proved it. Many others are concerned by the language - that is proven. What is "highly speculative" about it now? The title is a little over the top - maybe. But this is no longer a speculation of its existence .. so I think .....

This needs to be moved from Skunk Works now!



I suspect it's "Highly Speculative" because the OP uses the phrase "World War Three" in a highly speculative and sensational attempt at generating interest in his blog.

I post the article here a few days back, but since I didn't make up some sensational thread, no one pounced on it:

GOP's plans for permanent war against terror?



www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


Funny I noticed your thread was posted in the world war 3 forum. Why is that I wonder?


edit on 17-5-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by MegaMind
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


Funny I noticed your thread was posted in the world war 3 forum.



Fair point. My reasoning being that is the sort of content they make that section for. Regardless, I did not use my own blog as a source, i posted several links to the actual bill, and i did not claim it will cause 'WW3".

I notice you havent commented on that more informative and yet less speculative and sensational thread that actually challenges people to read the bill and come to a conclusion based on the information. Why is that? Prefer sensationalism to tempered debate?

The OP is this thread is, BY DEFINITION, highly speculative. IF he had taken the time to search the issue on ATS, he would have seen a more balanced, source topic existing already. But he chose to make a HIGHLY SPECULATIVE headline meant to not engender informed debate, but generate traffic to his blog. I think he's lucky they didnt 404 his sorry rump.
edit on 17-5-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 



Among the many troubling aspects of the Detainee Security Act are provisions that expand the war against terrorist organizations on a global basis. The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) of 2001 was widely thought to provide authorization for the war in Afghanistan to root out al Qaeda, the Taliban, and others responsible for the 9/11 attacks. That war has dragged on for almost ten years, and after the demise of Osama Bin Laden, as the United States prepares for withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Detainee Security Act purports to expand the "armed conflict" against the Taliban, al Qaeda, and "associated forces" without limit. By declaring a global war against nameless individuals, organizations, and nations "associated" with the Taliban and al Qaeda, as well as those playing a supporting role in their efforts, the Detainee Security Act would appear to grant the President near unfettered authority to initiate military action around the world without further congressional approval. Such authority must not be ceded to the President without careful deliberation from Congress.


from a letter posted here ... thehill ...

and signed by these congressmen ...


Reps. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), John Dingell (D-Mich.), Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), Bob Filner (D-Calif.), Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Michael Honda (D-Calif.), Jesse Jackson (D-Ill.), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), John Lewis (D-Ga.), Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), James McGovern (D-Mass.), George Miller (D-Calif.), Jim Moran (D-Va.), Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Donald Payne (D-N.J.), David Price (D-N.C.), Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Bobby Scott (D-Va.), Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), Fortney “Pete” Stark (D-Calif.), Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) and David Wu (D-Ore.).


They said it better than I.


edit on 17-5-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-5-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


I have seen many sensationalist thread titles but that doesn't mean they go to skunk works. It is in skunk works because everyone was arguing over the source - mainly that there was not a credible one. So now that it is proven I say move it to the World War 3 forum like yours and argue about what the section means not whether it exist.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by MegaMind
I say move it to the World War 3 forum like yours and argue about what the section means not whether it exist.


Why move it there when a previously formed thread with sourced info exists?

The OP used this thread not for discussion, but for promotion of his blog. The info was also here on ATS. He's a spammer. Also, the info you are presenting was posted at least a few pages back. Did you even read the thread?



new topics

top topics



 
94
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join