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: 11
94
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


Did anyone find the HR 1540 at the armed services committee?

Edit: I see that the OP did. Oh well apparently it needed to be brought up again as people were still questioning the source and its existence. I read the first few pages and the last few pages but not the whole thread. I missed the section where the OP posted the same link I found (apparently so did a few others)
edit on 17-5-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 17 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
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?


First, I didn't know there was another thread on the subject. I saw this thread on the front page - not yours.

Second, I'm glad there is another thread on this that is not in skunk works.

Third, the OP was trying to generate traffic to his blog but I was hoping that the importance of what is being discussed would over shadow that - but apparently it didn't.

Finally, give a guy a chance, you just posted a link to your thread.
edit on 17-5-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
now i have my answer and now i think it is just a matter of time before this site is deemed a combatant web site.
Even if 1034 does not appear in the singed bill, if bill passes, it is still part of national security and can be, with out vote, be made in to law.
Is not the "P"act so much fun, when it comes to national security, and pres orders, ZIG BUSH!!!!! we have him to thank. your for it or your against it.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MegaMind
 

to answer you yes, www.navytimes.com... back with another link and then this one www.afa.org... from the link

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE

Fiscal 2012 Defense Authorization
House Armed Services Committee
Full Committee Markup
House Armed Services Committee (Chairman McKeon, R-Calif.) will mark up will mark the fiscal 2012 defense authorization bill.
Date Wednesday, May 11, 10 a.m.
Place 2118 Rayburn Bldg.
Agenda HR 1540 — National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
HR1054 is a real deal bill the question is, is section 1034 still part of it has it been dumped or has it been deemed "NS" national security and therefore no longer "public eye's"?????

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



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 


No I posted a link on the previous page where the Chairman's Marks which contain section 1034 can be downloaded in PDF format direct from the Armed Services Committee.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by LosLobos

Originally posted by emberscott
For those that just can't seem to find it it is at

Page 134. Section 1034

armedservices.house.gov...



Just out of curiosity. How can I link to the PDF on my own starting at the websites homepage? Exactly what tab is it under? I tried finding it under all the tabs and I couldn't find it unless I click your link.

For all I know, this PDF is sitting on your desktop. Especially considering this is your very first post on ATS.
edit on 16-5-2011 by LosLobos because: (no reason given)


i think you have become wayyyyy too skeptical as a result of this website. the web address is clearly and directly from a .gov web domain.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by korathin

Originally posted by alexhiggins732


Well I hope America's young ladies are ready for front line infantry. Because in order to support this they will need to enact a draft. Gen Y males= A) undraftable, B) most are too much out of shape and C) most just aren't capable of being violent.

While Gen Y gal's are A) draftable, B) in shape mostly, and C) very prone to violence.

This should be amusing to say the least...


Im very curious as to why you say Gen Y is undraftable for males. I belong in this group and for 20 years i was undraftable due to my mother and me being her only son, but now i have another brother and thought i am eligible for the draft if it occurs.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   



The committee supports the Executive Branch’s interpretation of the Authorization for
Use of Military Force, as it was described in a March 13, 2009, filing before the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia. While this affirmation is not intended to limit or alter the
President’s existing authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force, the
Executive Branch’s March 13, 2009, interpretation remains consistent with the scope of the
authorities provided by Congress.


armedservices.house.gov...

Has the interpretation being referred to here been posted anywhere? I've read the entire topic and can't find it anywhere. Apologies if I missed it somehow. Essentially, that is the crux of the matter. This section of the bill reaffirms that interpretation by the executive branch. The only rulings or statements I can find for that date were the Obama administration siding with the Bush administration's assertion of the right to detain enemy combatants, but to no longer refer to them as enemy combatants.

If that's what this is referring to, where does the authorization to wage war anywhere at any time come in? I'm having trouble finding anything that indicates that anywhere in the bill, or in this topic. Can anyone elaborate?
edit on 5/17/2011 by AceWombat04 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by alexhiggins732
 


I'm in Britain and I don't like Glee or Disney T.V. Should I be worried.



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by derst1988

Im very curious as to why you say Gen Y is undraftable for males. I belong in this group and for 20 years i was undraftable due to my mother and me being her only son, but now i have another brother and thought i am eligible for the draft if it occurs.
I'm wondering the same. It's an interesting idea but where is the information coming from concerning that statement? If it's personal experience, that's one thing, but was that recorded somewhere?



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Heres the other link for this bill, sorry if it was posted.
The bill to vote to declare World War 3



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceWombat04


Has the interpretation being referred to here been posted anywhere? I've read the entire topic and can't find it anywhere. Apologies if I missed it somehow. Essentially, that is the crux of the matter. This section of the bill reaffirms that interpretation by the executive branch. The only rulings or statements I can find for that date were the Obama administration siding with the Bush administration's assertion of the right to detain enemy combatants, but to no longer refer to them as enemy combatants.

If that's what this is referring to, where does the authorization to wage war anywhere at any time come in? I'm having trouble finding anything that indicates that anywhere in the bill, or in this topic. Can anyone elaborate?
edit on 5/17/2011 by AceWombat04 because: (no reason given)


Agreed. I asked the same thing in this thread a while back:



Section 1034—Affirmation of Armed Conflict with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Associated Forces This section would affirm that the United States is engaged in an 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). This section would also affirm that the President’s authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force includes the authority to detain certain belligerents until the termination of hostilities. The committee notes that as the United States nears the tenth anniversary of the attacks on September 11, 2001, the terrorist threat has evolved as a result of intense military and diplomatic pressure from the United States and its coalition partners. However, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces still pose a grave threat to U.S. national security. The Authorization for Use of Military Force necessarily includes the authority to address the continuing and evolving threat posed by these groups. The committee supports the Executive Branch’s interpretation of the Authorization for Use of Military Force, as it was described in a March 13, 2009, filing before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. While this affirmation is not intended to limit or alter the President’s existing authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force, the Executive Branch’s March 13, 2009, interpretation remains consistent with the scope of the authorities provided by Congress. Section 1035—Requirement


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by derst1988
 
yes and here is the home page armedservices.house.gov... and here is the link to the bill as a hole, top link and as reported second link note the difference in the bill armedservices.house.gov...



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by userid1
 


nice source..




top topics



 
94
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join