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: 3
94
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.




posted on May, 15 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by alexhiggins732
 


Well I just think that once it gets like the other 2...someone will pull the nuke trigger worrying that they will fall like the previous "bad guys"



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Konah
reply to post by Kali74
 


Here - page 18. Taken from the Armed Services Committee website.


That states part of it...

Interesting that bill also makes it illegal for detainees in US Torture Prisons to be transferred to US prisons. If they say your a terrorist and take you away it will be illegal for them to ever allow you back.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Konah
 


Good find..

389 pages....and people wonder why understanding these bills gets complicated....



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
here is the link to the bill

www.govtrack.us...


I haven't found the exact enabling text yet



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lostinthedarkness
here is the link to the bill

www.govtrack.us...


I haven't found the exact enabling text yet


The ACLU letter says:


Oppose Section 1034 and Any Similar New Declaration of War or New Authorization for Use of Military Force in the National Defense Authorization Act


Is there a section 1034?



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by alexhiggins732
 


I read it. Nothing new here. Our freedoms have been ripped away for the last 20 years. The Patriot ACT is the same thing as this. So,how is it new? Its not. Its just dotting the I,and crossing the T. The Government will do what it has been infiltrated to do. Where were ALL the people when the Patriot Act was being written and passed? Exactly where they will be,when this bill is signed. As to "officially"declaring WW3, President Bush,did that with his invasion of Iraq. President Obama continues his crusade. Sorry brother,but really,its nothing I havnt heard Alex Jones say for the last 10 years. As for the ACLU,they will be doing what they have been doing this whole time.

ACLU



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
This just in as well, from:

GOP's plans for permanent war against terror?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
by incrediblelousminds
started on 5/14/2011 @ 07:27 PM

House Dems Protest GOP's Plans For Permanent War Against Terror
thehill.com...
By Pete Kasperowicz - 05/11/11 07:45 AM ET


Democrats wrote to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) and asked him to hold hearings on these proposals before including them in the NDAA, particularly given the recent killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.

But Republicans are not expected to consider that request. Instead, McKeon is expected to hold a markup Wednesday morning to grant committee approval of the bill.

The text of the letter follows:

Dear Chairman McKeon:

We are writing concerning certain troubling provisions in H.R. 968, the Detainee Security Act of 2011, which we understand are likely to be considered as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of the Fiscal Year of 2012. Whatever one thinks about the merits of the Detainee Security Act, it is a serious enough departure from current counterterrorism policy and practice to merit consideration apart from the NDAA. Accordingly, we request that you use your chairmanship in the House Armed Services Committee to immediately hold hearings so that the public can further consider the various provisions within the Detainee Security Act.

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.

The Detainee Security Act also unwisely requires that all terrorism suspects eligible for detention under the AUMF be held exclusively in military custody pending further disposition. The practical effect of this provision will be to undermine the ability of the FBI and local law enforcement to participate in counterterrorism operations, which could have serious negative impacts on national security. Moreover, in a recent hearing in the House Armed Services Committee, Department of Defense General Counsel Jeh Johnson noted that, rather than help clarify detention authority, the military custody provision in the Detainee Security Act would create serious litigation risk for the government.

The Detainee Security Act contains several additional troublesome provisions that relate to Guantanamo. The Detainee Security Act in effect requires that terrorism suspects be tried in military commissions, thereby cutting out Article III federal courts from conducting terrorism trials. This is unwise, as Article III federal courts have convicted over 400 individuals of terrorism-related offenses since 9/11. Military commissions, mired by legal problems and controversy, have convicted only six. The Detainee Security Act would also make permanent current transfer restrictions on Guantanamo detainees, further undermining the ability of the President to close the offshore detention facility. In our view, restricting the President in this way is unnecessary to promote a robust national security that keeps the American people safe.

Whatever one thinks of these various proposals in the Detainee Security Act, it is clear that they will have serious consequences and should be examined extensively. We therefore request that you use your chairmanship to immediately call hearings on Detainee Security Act so that the American people have an opportunity to consider the serious impacts that this legislation could have on our national security.

Sincerely,

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.).

edit on 5/15/2011 by this_is_who_we_are because: typo



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by alexhiggins732

Originally posted by Konah
reply to post by Kali74
 


Here - page 18. Taken from the Armed Services Committee website.


That states part of it...

Interesting that bill also makes it illegal for detainees in US Torture Prisons to be transferred to US prisons. If they say your a terrorist and take you away it will be illegal for them to ever allow you back.


I read that as well. It seems I won't be able to go to sleep as early as planned tonight... going to have to be reading late so I can write up an article of my own.


Originally posted by manta78
reply to post by Konah
 


Good find..

389 pages....and people wonder why understanding these bills gets complicated....


Thank yea. That's why riders like this are so sneaky.


While I think the ACLU may have sensationalized their headlines a bit, this is still dangerous. Providing the President(s) with affirmative action for armed conflict with the Taliba, al-Qaeda, and "associates" who wish to instigate terrorism is dangerous... the scope of "terrorism" has been broadened so much (even searching for its definition in the U.S. Code causes you to bounce around a bit) and who are "associates"?



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
1034: Thanks again Konah for that link.



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 forUse 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—


Source: armedservices.house.gov...


edit on 5/15/2011 by manta78 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by alexhiggins732
 


I read it. Nothing new here. Our freedoms have been ripped away for the last 20 years. The Patriot ACT is the same thing as this. So,how is it new? Its not. Its just dotting the I,and crossing the T. The Government will do what it has been infiltrated to do. Where were ALL the people when the Patriot Act was being written and passed? Exactly where they will be,when this bill is signed. As to "officially"declaring WW3, President Bush,did that with his invasion of Iraq. President Obama continues his crusade. Sorry brother,but really,its nothing I havnt heard Alex Jones say for the last 10 years. As for the ACLU,they will be doing what they have been doing this whole time.

ACLU


Obviously, you are denial by minimization. What is so hard to understand that this bill declares war on the world and gives the president absolute military power to invade nation at his will without the need for congressional approval?



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Apparently, as the ACLU writes there are several versions of this bill floating around where the verbages has been packed into.

Here's a McCain sponsored version
www.lawfareblog.com...



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Here it is, found it...

armedservices.house.gov...


Section 1034 is an attempt to update the AUMF and to include in it the specific power to detain. It reads in its entirety:

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. 15 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 3 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Also


Section 4 would require military detention of any individual “who is eligible for detention” under the AUMF unless the Secretary of Defense certifies that “the national security interests of the United States” require a waiver of that requirement. Once in military custody, the law would allow only two dispositions: military commission trial or long-term military detention. . . . The result is that anyone detained for virtually any activity in support of the enemy, absent a waiver from the Secretary of Defense, would have to be remanded to military custody. The bill makes no distinction between captures domestically and those abroad, between captures of citizen and captures of aliens. It thus arguably includes nearly all counterterrorism arrests in the United States for activities involving Al Qaeda. . . . This provision could well require treating all Al-Qaeda-related domestic terrorism arrests the way that Padilla and Al Marri were treated. That is a really bad idea.


www.lawfareblog.com...



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by alexhiggins732


Obviously, you are denial by minimization. What is so hard to understand that this bill declares war on the world and gives the president absolute military power to invade nation at his will without the need for congressional approval?


And going into a sovereign nation,a so called friendly nation,that has NUCLEAR WEAPONS ,without congress knowing,or approval,and killing a known terror leader, ISNT an act of WAR? There was NO BILL that justified the Presidents actions. He does,and his military does,what they want to do,bill or not. Its fact.No denial either. Ask the Laotian people,about the CIA in 1954. The puppet Government of Iraq,we put in power,and the subsequent wars to rid the puppet we put in place. WW3 has been happening since WW2 ended.It doesnt matter if this "bill" passes or not. Its nothing "new" either.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Alex,I admire your patriotism. Unfortunately, you and I both know that the Constitution is being trampled on. I felt the same way as you did,with the Patriot Act. I wait patiently for the people of America to wake up one day,and see it for what its become. A Fascist Country.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
I added the following quote to my post:



House Dems protest GOP’s plans for permanent war against terror


Nearly three dozen House Democrats are calling on Republicans to withdraw a section of the 2012 defense authorization bill that they say would effectively declare a state of permanent war against unnamed Taliban and al Qaeda operatives.

A Tuesday letter from House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and 32 other Democrats argues that affirming continued war against terrorist forces goes too far, giving too much authority to the president without debate in Congress.

Their letter cites language in the authorization bill that incorporates the Detainee Security Act, which affirms continued armed conflict against terrorists overseas.

“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,” Democrats wrote. “Such authority must not be ceded to the president without careful deliberation from Congress.”

The specific language in the bill is found in section 1034 of H.R. 1540, which affirms that the U.S. is “engaged in an armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces.” It also affirms that the president has the authority to detain “certain belligerents” until the armed conflict is over.

“Al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces still pose a grave threat to U.S. national security,” the bill says. “The Authorization for Use of Military Force necessarily includes the authority to address the continuing and evolving threat posed by these groups.”



Source: The HIll



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1
Alex,I admire your patriotism. Unfortunately, you and I both know that the Constitution is being trampled on. I felt the same way as you did,with the Patriot Act. I wait patiently for the people of America to wake up one day,and see it for what its become. A Fascist Country.


The only way to defeat the darkness is to shine light on it. Allowing congress to declare world war 3 by burying the authorization in massive defense bills is exactly why we are where we are!

Hence, I call this out for what it is The Declaration of World War 3! That will grab people's attention and make people realize what is going on.

Minimizing it by saying it is no big deal, nothing new here, they have been doing it... that is what they did in Pakistan on expresses an opinion of submission to the trampling of our constitutional writes and sets the example that others should submit as you have.

If it passes, it passes, but I will do my best to raise awareness about it.

Here's a quote from my recent article on spying on US Citizens written by Washington's Blog



Silence is the Death of Liberty



First they tortured a U.S. citizen and gang member …
I remained silent;
I wasn’t a criminal

Then they tortured a U.S. citizen, whistleblower and navy veteran …
I remained silent;
I wasn’t a whistleblower

Then they locked up an attorney for representing accused criminals …
I remained silent;
I wasn’t a defense attorney

Then they arrested a young father walking with his son simply because he told Dick Cheney that he disagreed with his policies …
I remained silent;
I’ve never talked to an important politician

Then they said an entertainer should be killed because she questioned 9/11 …
I remained silent;
I wasn’t an entertainer

Then they arrested people for demanding that Congress hold the President to the Constitution …
I did not speak out;
I’ve never protested in Washington

Then they arrested a man for holding a sign …
I did not speak out;
I’ve never held that kind of sign

Then they broke a minister’s leg because he wanted to speak at a public event …
I remained silent;
I wasn’t a religious leader

Then they shot a student with a taser gun and arrested him for asking a question of a politician at a public event …
I remained silent;
I wasn’t a student

They they decided that they could assassinate U.S. citizens without trial …
I said nothing;
I assumed I wasn’t on any hit list

When they came for me,
Everyone was silent;
there was no one left to speak out.

Inspired by the poem First They Came by Martin Niemöller, which was written about the Nazis.

I originally wrote this poem in 2007. I have updated it with the additional verse about assassinations.


Spying on U.S Citizens — Uncle Sam turns his multi-billion dollar espionage network on U.S Citizens
http://(nolink)/2011/05/07/spying-citizens-uncle-sam-turns-multibillion-dollar-espionage-network-citizens-22358/



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Remember... The great part of America is Not The Government, It's Not Hollywood and it's Not the Rich and Powerful.. It's The Ordinary Down to Earth People who make America Great. Make it Great one more time.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   
They had darn well better hold a vote on it! Otherwise, it would be unconstitutional!


/TOA




top topics



 
94
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join