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

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Well the bill just passed the senate : 88-12... traitors from both sides... what a surprise... NOT.

You do understand it has to pass the house and be signed into law by the President right?

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Well the bill just passed the senate : 88-12... traitors from both sides... what a surprise... NOT.

You do understand it has to pass the house and be signed into law by the President right?

You do know that it's gonna pass and Obama is gonna sign it right?

reply to post by Vitchilo


do you have the article?

The bill has not yet been passed by the Senate from what I see (Link). Although, it will be passed by the Senate, given that the republicans and a few nazi democrats have already rejected multiple amendments to the bill that would change Section 1031 and the language related to indefinite detainment.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
I want to ask a question in regards to the Presidential elections in Nov 2012:

If Obama is not re-elected, is it possible for him to declare Martial Law prior to the inauguration of January 2013 in order to try and halt a new President from taking over the reins of the White House?

If this were to happen, how does that work and what does it mean for the newly elected President?

Interesting scenario .... "Obama's jealous rage" perhaps?

It's complicated, but;

The Martial Law Act of 2006

Martial law is perhaps the ultimate stomping of freedom. And yet, on September 30, 2006, Congress passed a provision in a 591-page bill that will make it easy for President Bush to impose martial law in response to a terrorist “incident.” It also empowers him to effectively declare martial law in response to what he or other federal officials label a shortfall of “public order” — whatever that means.

I don't know if any of this has been amended

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Well the bill just passed the senate : 88-12... traitors from both sides... what a surprise... NOT.

You do understand it has to pass the house and be signed into law by the President right?

Sorry that you and most of the population do not understand what "Law" is, but this is just legislation and NOT law as it is.

Law is something that is proven in a court of law and not in an equity court. If there is no harm to another human and no damage to proerty then there can be no crime, hence no law. This is just an addition to corporate policy.

Simple as that, it is just legislation as there IS not enactment cluase and the majority of the people would reject it openly. It is null and void and has no effect on Sovereign human beings.

Again, there IS NO ENACTMENT CLAUSE to show WHO has the authority, the people have the authority and if you disagree with this bill, then it is null and void.

Presumption of Authority IS NOT actual authority!!

New to this site.

But if they start to implement this plan the US will turn into a Battlefield. And I think that is what they really want.

reply to post by daddio


Some people think the U.S. court system is under a form of Admiralty law.

The yellow fringed flag has something to do with it.

Common Law needs a victim to proceed.

Admiralty does not.

I don't know the difference.

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by daddio

 

Some people think the U.S. court system is under a form of Admiralty law.

The yellow fringed flag has something to do with it.

Common Law needs a victim to proceed.

Admiralty does not.

I don't know the difference.

You are correct, but Admirality law in dealing with the high seas is also including cargo and commerce. See this site for details and to inform yourself.

www.barefootsworld.net...

It explains everything and sites the Congressional Record AND court cases.

Rebut everything, give NO name and state that ALL public servants are public trustees and YOU are the beneficiary of the trust. Fact. You are the Executor of the public trust and YOU are their boss!!

I'm watching that POS Graham defend this crappy bill and I just want to punch his freaking face... his voice is just annoying as hell.

Stinking bastard.... he's such a LIAR...

Graham is so proud of the ``balance`` of this bill... see, we're not TOTALLY screwing the constitution, just a little...

Eh you stinking bastard : we don't do any compromise on the constitution!

Edit : that sicko just said that the government assassinating a US citizen was good...

Udall trying to pass his amendment again.

Vote on feinstein amendment happening right now. It limits mandatory military detention of terror suspects outside the US.

This bill will pass the senate. MAYBE some patriots in the house will oppose it and kill it..but, if it passes the house, obama will sign it. He doesn't have the balls to stand up to TPTB, and they want this. Well..the minute this comes to pass, the idea of america will have drawn it's last breath. I'm thinking right now that the 4 most important things you can have right now, are a passport, some cash, a gun and transport outta here.

Section 1031 - Part B

(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.

The remainder of 1031 deals with military tribunals, and if you would take notice it specifically references the Military Commission Act of 2009. Please review the list of cases I cited to get from point A to excludes US citizens.

1032 sets forth the requirements for military detention -

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-
(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.

As in 1031, we see a reference to the AUMF - 107-40. That specifically deals with the war on terror. Person described in paragraph 2 who are subject to this law -

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--

Emphasis added by me. Any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 - terrorists.

Terrorist further defined -

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

The waiver requirement, again, has no application to US citizens. We know this because - ]

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

This is part of section 4 - The waiver portion above:

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
(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.

The waiver section specifically states this does NOT apply to US citizens.

Now, how about US Citizens who are overseas who engage US forces?
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part III > § 1481 - Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—

..........

(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or

......

(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

This bill does NOT apply to US Citizens. I dont know how else to make it any clearer. The US Citizens who have gone overseas to engage in war against the US are specifically defined by both US law, as well as UN / International Law on classifications of people during times of war.

reply to post by Xcathdra

You can post the same thing over and over, and the only people that will agree with you, most of us call tyrants.
You have tried to convince, and you have failed. Perhaps you should reevaluate your own position.
You are beating a dead horse. You are siding with an elite group that cares nothing for the rights of the common man. If you have not been able to come to this conclusion on your own, there probably is no sense debating with you as you have a limited, naive worldview.

The Feinstein amendment just failed... unfortunately... That means mandatory military arrest of ``terrorists`` anywhere, including the US.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced legislation Tuesday that would prohibit any American captured by the U.S. military in its war on terrorism from being held indefinitely without trial,

politics.blogs.foxnews.com...

The fascists have won another round.

reply to post by Xcathdra

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

(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.

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined-- (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and (B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(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.

here is the structure

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(a)

.....(1)

.....(2)

.....(3)

.....(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY

(b)

.....(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.


(b)(1) IS NOT PART OF (a)(4)

can you follow the letters and numbers?? I don't think you can ...

reply to post by SurrealisticPillow

Originally posted by PapaKrok
reply to post by PapaKrok

 

Latest News...

Proposed Amendments to S1867:
www.infowars.com...

Senate Amendment (SA) 1126 would “clarify” Section 1031 to explicitly state within the section that the authority of the military to detain persons without trial until the end of hostilities does not apply to American citizens.

SA 1125 would limit the mandatory detention provision in Section 1032 to persons captured abroad, not in America.

reply to post by MegaMind


i really feel for you guys trying to hack this out and understand it. This IS the biggest problem.

(1) YOU are NOT a "U.S.citizen" if you are NOT born within federal territory. THAT is a fact, if you were not born in D.C. or Puerto Rico or the other 4 island possessions of the "U.S." then you ARE NOT a U.S. citizen but a Citizen of the united states of America. In legal speak it is written this way, the "u" and the "s" are NOT capitalized because they are not Nouns, person place or thing, America is the 50 union states. 50 being the key word. Full Disclosure is never given, thus you have a defense, but if you are denied the right to speak, you are done and can be "disappeared".

In legal terms, which many people here do not understand, a Sovereign is a terrorist in the "eyes" of the "U.S. corporation", rage against the machine.

Get it people? I didn't think so. For years I have been trying to explain the legal speak, and YES it is very specific. TPTB do this because YOU do not understand or stand under them. We shall never stand UNDER them, WE are the power and the authority, they fear you learning that and so many have now come to the realization of what is truly going on and have filed the correct paperwork to stop the madness. So TPTB are panicking and trying ANYTHING to put a finger in the dam. TOO LATE for them. Free yourself by filing the paperwork, it is the LAW and is undisputed.

Legislation IS NOT LAW!!!! THAT IS THE ONLY FACT THAT MATTERS!!!

reply to post by Xcathdra

Xcathdra!
How many ways can you embarrass yourself without my help?
You must really think ATS members are as stupid as the general public.
The world is falling down and you are cool with it.

So...what are we, the people going to do about this? seems like it's bottom of the 9th and we're down to our final strike. What happens when this is law and people start disappearing? will you bow down...or engage?