Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being R

page: 17
207
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


A US citizen is entitled to a trial by a jury of their peers NOT a military judge!

Oh and what is "long-term" what legally is considered a "long -term"??

It does apply to citizens show me where it doesn't!
edit on 29-11-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-11-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Not so fast...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
The Vietnamese should have kept John McCain in indefinite detention... the guy is a fascist scumbag who shouldn't have never been elected. The guy is a total traitor.

People who elected him again and again are total idiots.

The American government has openly declared war on the American people.
edit on 29-11-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 

Dear this_is_who_we_are,

Thank you for responding to me and pointing out something interesting. Forgive me if I have to ask you for further clarification. You see, the point you underlined says that the provisions of paragraph one can be waived, but you circled paragraph 2.

Paragraph 1 directs that the military shall hold a person, blah blah blah. So the waiver provision you've pointed out means that the Secretary of Defense can order a person to be not held if it helps national security.

Am I missing something?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 

Dear this_is_who_we_are,

Thank you for responding to me and pointing out something interesting. Forgive me if I have to ask you for further clarification. You see, the point you underlined says that the provisions of paragraph one can be waived, but you circled paragraph 2.

Paragraph 1 directs that the military shall hold a person, blah blah blah. So the waiver provision you've pointed out means that the Secretary of Defense can order a person to be not held if it helps national security.

Am I missing something?

With respect,
Charles1952


You are correct they are REQUIRED to hold a person

..... and ...

that requirement does not extend to US citizens although US citizens CAN be held indefinitely.

THAT is completely at odds with the US Constitution.
edit on 29-11-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChuckNasty
You guys are all sheep believing anything the media shoves into your mouths.

Read the bill section thingie, pg 362 of: www.gpo.gov...

Read the ACLU article that seems to be pushing the Udall amendment: www.aclu.org...

Read the Udall proposed amendment: www.scribd.com...

Doesn't apply to US citizens and legal aliens...but if you commit a crime, I'm sure you'll be locked up.

The Udall amendment puts the guantanamo bay guys into our civil courts to be tried with the same rights as a US citizen... They deserve to rot in jail for failing in their terrorist duty of blowing themselves up.

Stop being sheep.


Bump for myself - can't believe so many people get caught up in what is posted in the news vs what is fact. If the Udall amendment is allowed, be prepared for some really pissed off Guantanamo prisoners to get back at us. I'm sure the civil courts would find no evidence on convicting 99% of them. Gooooo team!



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 


Colorado Senator Mark Udall should be Shot for Treason Against the People of the United States for Sponsoring this Bill . Thankfully , it was Soundly Defeated today in the Senate..........

www.prisonplanet.com...



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Check Megamind's reply. This clause waives the "Covered Persons" clause at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense, meaning a U.S. Citizen is not exempt from military arrest under the provisions of the Bill.
edit on 11/29/2011 by this_is_who_we_are because: defens



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ChuckNasty
 



If the Udall amendment is allowed, be prepared for some really pissed off Guantanamo prisoners to get back at us. I'm sure the civil courts would find no evidence on convicting 99% of them.

Yeah, because THEY ARE NOT GUILTY.

Most people at Guantanamo are not guilty of anything. They are just there for the government to say there's really terrorists. Guess what, those people are not terrorists.

You do know that the US gave thousands of $$ for every ``terrorists`` the Afghans gave to them right? How many Afghans with no money turned their own mother in for the money? I know a lot of people around here would turn their neighbor in for 10 grand...

Got proof they are terrorists? Then they can stay in jail. No proof? Release. Simple.

The only real terrorists are in Washington DC, Langley and at the FED.
edit on 29-11-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChuckNasty

Originally posted by ChuckNasty
You guys are all sheep believing anything the media shoves into your mouths.

Read the bill section thingie, pg 362 of: www.gpo.gov...

Read the ACLU article that seems to be pushing the Udall amendment: www.aclu.org...

Read the Udall proposed amendment: www.scribd.com...

Doesn't apply to US citizens and legal aliens...but if you commit a crime, I'm sure you'll be locked up.

The Udall amendment puts the guantanamo bay guys into our civil courts to be tried with the same rights as a US citizen... They deserve to rot in jail for failing in their terrorist duty of blowing themselves up.

Stop being sheep.


Bump for myself - can't believe so many people get caught up in what is posted in the news vs what is fact. If the Udall amendment is allowed, be prepared for some really pissed off Guantanamo prisoners to get back at us. I'm sure the civil courts would find no evidence on convicting 99% of them. Gooooo team!


How do you know some poor innocent farmer wasn't fingered by someone bent on revenge or turned over to the US for a reward. This isn't justice - its just us being plain wrong.
edit on 29-11-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 


Colorado Senator Mark Udall should be Shot for Treason Against the People of the United States for Sponsoring this Bill . Thankfully , it was Soundly Defeated today in the Senate..........

www.prisonplanet.com...


Re-read that article - the amendment that ...


would have provided oversight to check the military’s power to arrest U.S. citizens as suspected terrorists on American soil and detain them indefinitely without trial.


... was voted down!!



In other words NO CHANGE FOR THE BILL!!

www.washingtontimes.com
edit on 29-11-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
The New and Improved Twilight Zone Version of America.

Turning the Amercan Dream from this:


Into this:



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   
If you're a terrorist you should be shown no mercy!
What kind of animals think those things or plan to do things like
that, possibly? I think terrorist should be shot on sight, I know
I would feel safer! Next we can bomb bomb bomb iran and then
hopefully Russia!



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta
If you're a terrorist you should be shown no mercy!
What kind of animals think those things or plan to do things like
that, possibly? I think terrorist should be shot on sight, I know
I would feel safer! Next we can bomb bomb bomb iran and then
hopefully Russia!


sarcasm??

If YOU are accused of being a terrorist are YOU guilty just because someone in the executive branch says you are? If so, what do we need a judicial branch for?
edit on 29-11-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 


If you go back to section 1031, you will see the defintion of a COVERED person. 1032 specifically states it dos not afffeect nor is it applied in any way shape or form to US Citizens.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 


If you go back to section 1031, you will see the defintion of a COVERED person. 1032 specifically states it dos not afffeect nor is it applied in any way shape or form to US Citizens.


Where in (2) COVERED person does it exempt US citizens?

(4) of 1032 says that the REQUIREMENT to hold persons does not extend to citizens.

In other words they are not REQUIRED to hold citizens but MAY.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by MegaMind

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 


If you go back to section 1031, you will see the defintion of a COVERED person. 1032 specifically states it dos not afffeect nor is it applied in any way shape or form to US Citizens.


Where in (2) COVERED person does it exempt US citizens?

(4) of 1032 says that the REQUIREMENT to hold persons does not extend to citizens.

In other words they are not REQUIRED to hold citizens but MAY.



For the COVERED part, read section 1031, which defines the term. For 1032, read the part that clearly states NO US CITIZEN IS SUBJECT TO THE LAW.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


1032 DOES NOT say that US citizens are exempt only that the REQUIREMENT to hold them is.


SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States SHALL hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The REQUIREMENT to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.


further more 1031 does not exempt US citizens


SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
edit on 29-11-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)


where in that definition does it say except US citizens??
edit on 29-11-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-11-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 

Dear this_is_who_we_are,

I'm afraid we're still missing each other, there must be a major misunderstanding.

Check Megamind's reply. This clause waives the "Covered Persons" clause at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense,
It seems to me that the waiver clause you're referring to says that it waives the provisions of paragraph 1. Are we in agreement there?

But the "Covered Persons" clause is labelled paragraph 2. Are we still good?

So if the waiver clause affects paragraph 1, and the "Covered Persons" clause is paragraph 2, then this clause does not waive the "Covered Persons" clause. OK?


meaning a U.S. Citizen is not exempt from military arrest under the provisions of the Bill.
This part I agree with. But only if we're talking about a US citizen who is part of, or collaborating with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or, well you can read the rest of it.

The waiver clause only lets the SecDef spring people from military custody, hand out a "Get out of jail free" card, so to speak. There is no more authority to detain people than there was ten years ago.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Frira
 


You should be careful. You actually read the bill and offered a comment based on logic, rationality, and the actual context of the bill. Thats not the way ATS typically works; people tend to read whatever the first line of the OP are, skip to the end, and immediately fear monger without hesitation.

Good job standing apart from the crowd!





new topics
 
207
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join