Prolonged Detention - Obama Justifies FEMA imprisonment of civilians

Prolonged Detention announcement





Is this for real? Up to 10 years in jail on the "possibility" that you would commit a crime? Thats the slipperiest slope I have ever seen.. They have a very vague description of terrorist these days.. this is a blanket solution in my opinion. .. probably more like their verision of a blanket party on the public..or ANYONE who try to rise against their sick goals..

I see a typical scenario could be played out like this.

Cop : hey you!
John q Public : yes officer?
Cop: What do you have in your bag there?
John q Public: Uhmm.. well not that its any of your business but its just my school books and lunch bag.
Cop: Mind if I take a look?
John q Public: Well.. kinda.. Do you have a warrant?
Cop: I don't need a warrant to search you..
John q Public: Well you kinda do, sorry. I'll be on my way.
Cop: John q Public you are under arrest!
John q Public: wtf? FOR WHAT?
Cop: I don't have to say. You will be detained until such time as I can determine you're not a threat to the public.
John q Public: WHOA! I'm pretty sure you can't do that! I want my lawyer NOW!
Cop: Once you are no longer deemed a threat, you can get a lawyer. Until then sit tight..
John q Public: This is crazy what or who gives you the right to do that to anyone?
Cop: Obama , now STFU slave.







Some one tell me this is a hoax...

reply to post by Iiquiringmind


It would only apply to terrorists. So next time you're smoking the good stuff just wear an american flag

Why is this thread posted under "Board Business"?

Is there some connection?

Did I miss something?

reply to post by OhZone


Its completly mis posted in the wrong section.. My mistake.. I tried to message the mods to move it somewhere appropriate, but its still sitting here.

This is a cross posting from another message board called God Like Productions.

And it's absolute crap, but if you want to be terrified of your own shadow and scared to come out of your mother's basement, feel free to buy into it.

reply to post by HauntWok


So the news reporter and the Obama speech are fake?

reply to post by Iiquiringmind

1. The video doesn't mention FEMA at all.
2. FEMA has no detention power.
3. Maddow refers to a power "not afforded by the Constitution," but the power to detain enemy combatants is inherent in the President's Article II commander-in-chief powers.
4. Obama is talking about "Al Qaeda and their affiliates ... that we capture." This obviously does not refer to John Q. Public walking the streets of the United States.
5. Furthermore, in his speech, Obama announces his intention to limit his detention power by involving the other two branches of government. He wants a legal (statutory) framework and judicial review of detentions.

I don't know how anyone who watched that can make the leap to cops picking people up and handing them over to FEMA, who will detain them forever.

reply to post by Iiquiringmind


Fake as it doesn't apply to you, unless you are a terrorist, and by terrorist, I mean someone planing on blowing up stuff for snips and giggles.

Now if you're planning on blowing up stadiums or trains or stuff like that, then yes it applies to you and they probably will lock you up till you are no longer a danger to everyone around you. With good cause.

But sitting around with your book bag telling a cop that you want to exercise your 4th amendment rights is NOT going to get you thrown in jail for any longer than 24 hours without charge. (failure to produce valid ID is a reason to detain you without charge)

If you are a danger to yourself or others, they can hold you for 72 hours for psychiatric evaluation. What's a danger to yourself and others you might ask? Waiving a knife around threatening to cut off parts of your body, or other people's body, or similar such things might get you a talking to with a shrink.

Otherwise, don't be so paranoid, it's just not healthy.

reply to post by HauntWok


But the term "terrorist" is so vague now.. if you read other threads, Al queda is US manufactured! They can make anyone they want a terrorist, for any reason.. why woul he say we need "ad hoc " justice? They are basically saying they will make up the rules as they go based on how they perceived the threat.. Like as if the law says I can't search you illegally, well then lets just change that law to "if you don't agree to an illegal search, then you are a terrorist until you can prove otherwise" BTW prove it while you're in the jail here for an indefinite period of time.

IfI say I'm against the goverment and what they are doing to my freedoms and way of life, and so I want to protest..if I fall in their "adhoc" definition of a terrorist.. such as could be the case during a large protest like oh, I don't know, the economy and the banksters defrauding the world..then I am able to be imprisoned for it. For example, I heard of a massive protest to take place on the 9/11 in New york where they will try to shut down the NYSE and/or surround the FED.. are these poeple terrorists in your mind? or actual protesters looking for an alternative to the crap they have been fed all their lives?

reply to post by Iiquiringmind


No actually Terrorist isn't a vague term. It's very specific in it's implementation and it's usage in the courts of law. It's only online idiots who for some reason haven't bothered to take the two seconds it does to do a google search and find out what the specific definition of the word terrorist(ism) means.

Here it is:

(d) Definitions
As used in this section—
(1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;
(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
(3) the term “terrorist group” means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;
(4) the terms “territory” and “territory of the country” mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and
(5) the terms “terrorist sanctuary” and “sanctuary” mean an area in the territory of the country—
(A) that is used by a terrorist or terrorist organization—
(i) to carry out terrorist activities, including training, fundraising, financing, and recruitment; or
(ii) as a transit point; and
(B) the government of which expressly consents to, or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards such use of its territory and is not subject to a determination under—
(i) section 2405(j)(1)(A) of the Appendix to title 50;
(ii) section 2371 (a) of this title; or
(iii) section 2780 (d) of this title.

So please, stop being a martyr for freedom, because you aren't one.

reply to post by HauntWok


Whatever man.. deny all you want. All those words you posted can easily be interpreted in any way shape or form by any lawyer or prosecutor to suit the circumstances. If they don;t like you or what you saying, you too can be a terrorist just as easily as they can make up their mind..

Meanwhile when I see stuff like this: www.fbi.gov...

or this: www.latimes.com...

or this: www.topix.com...


...you can clearly see, or should anyways that all is not right. Keep denying what you see hear and feel.. it's all an illusion right? everything is well!..... cue the Wayne's world music

reply to post by Iiquiringmind


Ok, your first one is a clear case of terrorism. Whether she is found guilty of it, is another story.

The second one is aggravated battery. If you notice, your "innocent american" threw a drink at a flight attendant.

And the third one sent in a bomb threat! I mean cmon it's a bomb threat! That definitely would count as an act of terrorism.

Each of these cases you have a clear crime, aiding the enemy is one of those things that can get you in serious trouble. It's like when people whine and bitch and moan about the cops busting them, but when you listen to them they tell you about the crime they were committing when those mean ol cops came an busted them.

reply to post by HauntWok


Buddy, you just proved me right...

IN any of those stories.. was there any ACTUAL ACT of terrorism? You're saying throwing a drink at someone makes you a terrorist? You also saying that the story with the the bomb threat was a terrorist? It was PROVEN NOT to be a REAL threat by the COPS and admittedly so by the culprits....there was no BOMB!! and even if there was one.. there is already a real charge and laws on making false bomb threats, but they charge her with terrorism!

How can you say any of those people should be charged with an act of terrorism? I have to MURDER someone to be charged with a murder! I have to steal something to be charge with theft.. I have to assault someone to be charged with assault.. but I can be charged with terrorism whever it doesn't fall under all the other already in place laws.

Terrrorism is a blanket statement for anything THEY don't like you doing!

reply to post by Iiquiringmind

IN any of those stories.. was there any ACTUAL ACT of terrorism?

In the 1st and 3rd stories there definitely was an act of terrorism done. Aiding the enemy when the enemy are terrorists is an act of terrorism as defined above.

and calling in a bomb threat to a plane is most definitely an act of terrorism. What, do you think that people should be doing these things on a daily basis? Are these things that you want to be able to do?

In the second story, there was a crime committed, the lady threw a drink, that's battery. She should have gotten that charge, but, this is a brave new world and you don't act a fool on aircraft. Don't like it, don't fly.

I have a feeling you are just whining now. I'm sorry that you think your the endless victim, but you aren't.