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.

 

Unchecked authority

page: 1
32
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Unchecked authority


www.sbsun.com

The National Defense Authorization Act, a law outlining a budget that gets enacted every year so that the Department of Defense has the funds it needs to continue operation

Section 1034 is a provision
The proposal has no geographic boundaries, and it does not impose any safeguards that would prevent the president from using military force within our own country or even against American citizens. Furthermore, it also states that the president has " the authority to detain belligerents until t
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 26 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   


And here we have Obama defending it
Obama Would Veto Defense Bill Over Detainee Provisions

The new language jettisons references to September 11, and instead focuses on the authorization on "armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces," though "associated forces" is not defined. It replaces the authority to target "organizations" and "persons" domestically with the power to target "all entities that continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad."

tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com...

Something HUGE is happening people
I see too many things all happening all at the same time

This is by all definitions granting immense dictactorial powers on soil that was once known as "the land of the free"

Future citizens will curse us for allowing this to happen
We will be a horrible reflection of inactivity in decades to come

www.sbsun.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 26-5-2011 by ModernAcademia because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
I said it before the last (alleged) election: if Obama is chosen, it will be the last election, because he wants to be the first King of the North American Union. The czars, the bullying of states and private companies, the treatment of US citizens as the terrorists... it's 1984 all over again.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Could someone please give me their definition of a "belligerent".


(I have a feeling We are belligerents....)





posted on May, 26 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


thanks for posting this.. i've seen it around but never watched until today.


wow,, open in the air discussion of the problem we all fear most..


TG for this man.. we need more Brave people who speak their minds from the heart..











posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Actually Posse Commitatus prevents the military from being used against civilians. It also protects the states from being invaded by the federal government by laying out the requirements for use of military against a state.

Defense spending authorization has no geographic boundaries because we have bases all over the world (which ould use some toning down in my opinion).



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


.....that is until a "National Emergency" is declared. Then every law governing rights is superseeded. Have you not been paying attention?



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Signals
Could someone please give me their definition of a "belligerent".

(I have a feeling We are belligerents....)



In terms of international law, belligerence refers to (generally speaking) the aggressor between two sovereign states engaged in war.

Colloquially, it means war-like in behavior.

For example, some overly-zealous pro-life demonstrators picketing an abortion clinic have conducted themselves in a belligerent manner; shouting offensive words at people, and otherwise causing clients and doctors pubic embarrassment or even physical harm.

A policeman may officially include the word 'belligerent' in describing the conduct of a suspect who they may have subsequently physically retrained.

When your teenager mouths off to you for being 'stupid' (or is generally being disrespectful) you can call them 'belligerent.'


In my estimation "belligerence' refers to the justification for action taken against the belligerent party. (like putting your teenager up against a wall.... or macing a protester, etc.)

The word was really meant to be applied to the relationship between two states.. but I think you're right; they probably mean to apply it to any person who 'offends' the authority figure.


edit on 26-5-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a man with a rifle behind every blade of grass." Admiral Yamamoto

Some of us have several.

/TOA



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


If i may your honor,,, hrumphh,,

An individual is not a Sovereign State,, and as such would not be subject too said laws,, as they are clearly aimed at one State versus another State,,
Now i put too you is a Corporation , which we all know has the same same rights and privelages as a man, but is not,,,, well is a corpration a State?
edit on 26-5-2011 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by BobAthome
reply to post by Maxmars
 


If i may your honor,,, hrumphh,,

An individual is not a Sovereign State,, and as such would not be subject too said laws,, as they are clearly aimed at one State versus another State,,
Now i put too you is a Corporation , which we all know has the same same rights and privelages as a man, but is not,,,, well is a corpration a State?
edit on 26-5-2011 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)


Objection sustained.

An individual is not a sovereign state.

However, were we debating on behalf of the government, any person behaving in a manner which (even coincidentally) supports the position of a state with which we are at "war" can bet their bottom dollar that the DOJ will proceed as if they were a 'belligerent operative' of that state. (Assuming they could not reasonably have you dealt with by the military authorities.)

It's obviously not 'just' or 'fair' but it is how they achieve their goals - namely to categorize and stigmatize you badly enough to dissuade anyone else from challenging them similarly.

As for the latter, corporations may not deserve the legal recognition of statehood and sovereignty... but nations sure do seem to grant them precisely that defacto status (e.g. BP, TEPCO, Monsanto, etc.) once their big (rich) enough.


edit on 26-5-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
So then in conclusion
"authorization on "armed conflict "

Armed Conflict then by it's obvious name,, implies WAR

and Authorization as to the Declaration of WAR, has been enacted in Congress, secretly if u wish,, and we are then as a Nation ,,,under the municipal Laws granted the District of Washington (opps Columbia), in a state of WAR with someone ,, just not sure who yet.

sad.

"and i do believe this ""all entities that continue to pose a threat to the United States" should actually read,, "all entities that continue to pose a threat to the District of Columbia,, (Washington),, and so on and so forth,,,

Irest my case.
edit on 26-5-2011 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skerrako
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


.....that is until a "National Emergency" is declared. Then every law governing rights is superseeded. Have you not been paying attention?


I have been paying attention, and you are still wrong. State guard units are exempt from posses commitatus because they answer directly to the State Govenor and adjutant General of the state.

Federal Military ir prohiubited from engaging in civilian law enforcement. Even down her ein Joplin we have national guard units from the state. No federal troops, and all law enforcement is being conducted by law enforceemnt.

not sure where the continued paranoia comes in.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



not sure where the continued paranoia comes in.


Joplin wasn't declared a national emergency, just a state emergency.

if I'm wrong someone will correct me but I'm pretty sure only a national emergency involves the feds, and state emergency only involves the state...

however, if the HNIC tries to take over using a false flag or claim to emergency, I suspect our right to bear arms (originally intended to prevent such a thing) will come in super handy, and S will HTF

There really is an easy solution in that circumstance - just get all your friends and start storming - mob mentality will take over, and the citizens of this country will take it back.

but again, if I'm wrong someone will correct me - I'm not so good at wrapping my head around politics sometimes

I do know one thing - as long as the TSA is taking liberties with the touchy feelies - I won't be flying anywhere.
edit on 26-5-2011 by Forevever because: dyslexic moment

edit on 26-5-2011 by Forevever because: I am the typo queen



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


p.s i like it


So then, "will proceed as if they were a 'belligerent operative' of that state." that would mean that any belligerent,
caught out of uniform, would then be considered a "spy" for the opposed State, and under the rules of International Law what is the penalty for being out of uniform, in the beligerent State?
Or maybe being out of uniform is a little outdated, lets say,, perhaps "different beliefs, or an unwillingness to submit to pre-subscribed beliefs of one's fatherland, motherland, maybe as that would seem to be a little more recent in the turning of world events.

resting again



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 

I agree with you! It is getting close real close, we need a leader, someone who knows the insides of war! I really think many are waiting to see what happens in 2012. If Ron Paul is not elected, I think you will see all hell brake loose! We are giving it the last chance at a non violent revolution!



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by xyankee
 


You got your leader "we need a leader" who can deliver change. strike two



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by BobAthome
 


Do you mind explaining what you mean by I got my leader? Because if you think Obama is my leader your sadly mistaken. I want to see him hang! And you must be new to this site if you think I am a fan of his! lol I don't think there is an other person on this board who is proud to say "I AM A BIRTHER"
edit on 5/26/11 by xyankee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   


who can deliver change
reply to post by BobAthome
 


RON PAUL! He can deliver change! I hope he gets the chance to prove it!



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by xyankee
 


I meant as far as alligence, the "Office of Pres. of The United States of America",, but as a person The U.S.A has a Pres. Barrack. O Bamma,
HE was your "please God give us a New Leader,, who can lead us too that Great Change, " and God said,

fine Im outa here,,, lol




top topics



 
32
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join