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

Originally posted by LightsideAssassin
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?

One more time....

Legislation IS NOT LAW!!!

When will you people get it, the U.S. IS IN FACT a corporation, you are NOT an employee of IT are you? Then this corporate policy does not apply to you, please learn how to state the facts. Language is everything and the language that the common man speaks is different from how corporations speak or those representing them speak. So many people have pointed this out. The term "person" or "legal fiction" and HUMAN BEING or Living Soul. It matters. I don't care what anyone says, if you know how to speak the language, there is nothing they can do but shoot you!!!

Originally posted by daddio

Originally posted by LightsideAssassin
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?

One more time....

Legislation IS NOT LAW!!!

When will you people get it, the U.S. IS IN FACT a corporation, you are NOT an employee of IT are you? Then this corporate policy does not apply to you, please learn how to state the facts. Language is everything and the language that the common man speaks is different from how corporations speak or those representing them speak. So many people have pointed this out. The term "person" or "legal fiction" and HUMAN BEING or Living Soul. It matters. I don't care what anyone says, if you know how to speak the language, there is nothing they can do but shoot you!!!

When are YOU going to get that the US government doesn't give a # if it legally applies to the american people? they don't care about legality..THEY CARE ABOUT CONTROL. and, you know what? they WILL SHOOT. So, my question is valid. also..try decaf

Edit: if anyone, at this point, still doubts how far congress is willing to go to shut the american people down, read about ANOTHER provision of NDAA that was narrowly defeated because of Sen. Rand Paul that would have allowed americans to be held indefinitely, EVEN AFTER BEING FOUND INNOCENT AFTER A TRIAL. www.campaignforliberty.org...

reply to post by daddio


reply to post by LightsideAssassin


Stop. You're both right.

The "technicalities" pointed out by daddio are true.

At the same time, LightsideAssassin is correct.

Many "laws" are established but many only apply to a few people.

Many other people (the majority?) are victims of twisted enforcement and power mungers.

Take a real close look at all political legislation including the one in question in this topic.

How much of all that REALLY has a positive impact on the majority of citizens?

How much ACTUALLY applies to the majority of citizens?

Can anyone confirm this report;

Geeeesh................


December 1, 2011

(CNSNews.com) – (Updated) The Senate on Thursday evening voted 93-7 to approve a defense authorization bill that includes a provision which not only repeals the military law on sodomy, it also repeals the military ban on sex with animals--or bestiality.

On Nov. 15, the Senate Armed Services Committee had unanimously approved S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes a provision to repeal Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

Article 125 of the UCMJ makes it illegal to engage in both sodomy with humans and sex with animals.

Senate Approves Bill that Legalizes Sodomy and Bestiality in U.S. Military

reply to post by LightsideAssassin


Just a quick thought.

When are YOU going to get that the US government doesn't give a # if it legally applies to the american people? they don't care about legality..THEY CARE ABOUT CONTROL. and, you know what? they WILL SHOOT. So, my question is valid. also..try decaf

Edit: if anyone, at this point, still doubts how far congress is willing to go to shut the american people down, read about ANOTHER provision of NDAA that was narrowly defeated because of Sen. Rand Paul that would have allowed americans to be held indefinitely, EVEN AFTER BEING FOUND INNOCENT AFTER A TRIAL.

It seems from this that you believe both:

1.) The government will do what it wants whether the law is valid, or even if the law is there.

2.) Congress is trying to pass laws to hurt Americans, and that's bad.

If you believe that the law doesn't matter, then why do you care if Congress is passing laws?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
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.

all of your work doesn't matter...in no way or logically would the US not have authority to take out terrorists in our own country and to defend it

the fact they are codifying it even further tells me a lot about the future of the country

also you are not posting the other parts of this debate where anyone who supports the terrorists in anyway will fall under the detention provisions

reply to post by SuperTripps


The ACLU says:
Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (...section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.

www.aclu.org...

One of the authors of these provisions:
"1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.” - Lindsey Graham

In this video, Lindsey Graham says, in no uncertain terms, 1031 applies to citizens...
www.c-spanvideo.org...

Originally posted by cantormath
reply to post by SuperTripps

 

The ACLU says:
Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (...section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.

That is false information being pushed by the ACLU. Section 1031(e) specifically states: (emphasis added)

(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

So it seems that Section 1031 does prevent United States Citizens from the "indefinite detention" clauses within.

reply to post by charles1952

Law /lô/Noun: 1.The system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the...

2.An individual rule as part of such a system.

There it is, SYSTEM and RULES are the key words, YOU may ONLY operate or exist in the "public system" when you are properly "licensed". Meaning you have a SSN and a "drivers license" if you "use" a motor vehicle. Now here is what I have been saying about language, you have a natural born right to OWN property, part of that right is the ability to USE that property any way you see fit so long as you harm no one and damage no property. YOU DO NOT NEED a "license" to operate your automobile as it is private property. The "license" regulations came into being in full effect around 1940. few people had "licenses' before that and you could BUY one at the local drug store. I would post the whole truth here but it is a long article.

A license is often found under the law of contracts and apparently shares some attributes of contract. However, in its truest sense, a license is not a contract and it has generally been so held.

A license is merely a privilege to do business and is not a contract between authority granting it and grantee nor is it a property right, nor does it create a vested right. Mayo v. Market Fruit Co. of Sanford, Fla.,40 So. 2d 555, 559.

A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority, federal, state, or municipal granting it and the person to whom it is granted, and is not property or a property right. American States Water Services Co. of California v Johnson, 88 P.2d 770, 774; 31 Cal. App. 2d 606.

A license requires that one of the parties have competent authority over the thing or the act involved in the agreement whereas a contract does not. A license can be terminated by one of the parties at any time but a contract cannot. These authorities also show that a license is not a property right because it is not in itself property. Neither is a license a vested right but only a privilege.

REGULATIONS are what we have been led to "believe" or view as "laws" but they are NOT laws, they are commercial in nature and do not apply to the man on the land who wishes to harm no one or damage property. So when you violate the 'code' or 'regulations" you are fined and or imprisoned as the "responsible party" to the action of a fictional entity. That is why all courts are and/or deal with commerce and MONEY!! They are equity courts, that is why traffic tickets are issued....MONEY and CONTROL!! It's not about your rights, it's about MONEY and CONTROL!!

Personal responsibility. I could care less what "legislation" is passed, it does not apply to me. I am not a corporate fiction, legal fiction nor "person" or 14th Amendment "U.S. citizen' that acts in the public venue. I am the "agent" for the strawman. I am the beneficiary of the public trust. HJR-192. 1933. Look it up. You are an enemy of the state until you file your UCC-1 and a certificate of peace or a treaty with the "state' saying you are not an enemy combatant and so on.

We have been duped, and it is easier for those of you to let the government "take care of you" from cradle to grave, just so you do not have to read anything or be intellligent. If we all were responsible and understood how it is supposed to work and WHO we are, this world would be a much different place.

Sadly it won't and I am not sure it ever will be. After reading the posts here. No offense people but really......

reply to post by daddio


Most of us know that but we know it won't happen.

Laws will be followed by the thugs even if they are unconstitutional... simple as that.

if this bull# passes, and is signed by obama...then who or what says we can't legally declare war on the government?

Off of C-Span. Senators Graham and McCain arguing over the language in the bill. The fact remains that even after language revisions there already is existing law on the books allowing for indefinite detention of American and Legal citizens as deemed by the Executive Branch. I had no idea (shame on me) that this was already in existence. I do think domestic terrorism is a legit threat however this law is too damn scary to allow to remain. A suspected citizen or legal resident should first be found guilty by a jury trial before being surrendered to military custody. As it stands there is nothing protecting citizens and legal residents from a terror suspect label stamped on their forhead and off they go into a black hole. This needs to be changed.

seriously?!
how has this been brushed under and worse- even accepted by the senate so overwhlemingly?
what was this bill bundled with?

Wow all I can say is WTHH and WTF.I think i can understand the spirit of the bill being home grown US citizen terrorists cant hide behind the constitution but this is a slippery slope that we are on with this bill.I dont know which scares me more the bill or the people who will use the bill for there own purposes.

here is the definition of terrorist:
www.infowars.com...

homeschoolers, returning vets, raw milk producers, amish folks, christians, muslims, real semites, un real anti semites, writers readers, people with more then seven days foods and a couple boxes of .22s...alternative news and medical presenters...ats..

you are probably a terrorist when you have a cute wife or daughter or even son.

The US government has been doing this to it's citizens for years on a small scale. The bill is so 'over the top'. The director of the CIA, FBI and DOJ are advising against it. I get the feeling this is setting something up for the government. Will Obama step in as the hero and veto it, thus 'saving' the country? Are they turning up the heat on the burner that keeps us manageable in a fearful state? Why are they announcing this to the public the way they are?

Are they making this announcement to see who might be a problem in the future? They can track everything.

Or is it a distraction from a much larger story? (insert your guess as to what that is)

Anyone else think this is a suspicious story, even from the government?

Originally posted by RainbeauBleu
The US government has been doing this to it's citizens for years on a small scale. The bill is so 'over the top'. The director of the CIA, FBI and DOJ are advising against it. I get the feeling this is setting something up for the government. Will Obama step in as the hero and veto it, thus 'saving' the country? Are they turning up the heat on the burner that keeps us manageable in a fearful state? Why are they announcing this to the public the way they are?

Are they making this announcement to see who might be a problem in the future? They can track everything.

Or is it a distraction from a much larger story? (insert your guess as to what that is)

Anyone else think this is a suspicious story, even from the government?

edit on 5/12/11 by RainbeauBleu because:

NObama may veto the bill to send his message of defense cuts.

He will use the side issues as a distraction.

The power to use the military is already there.

A wild theory is the military will replace the police forces eventually,

because of budget problems.

The military already knows who among their ranks is "qualified" to patrol U.S. cities.

reply to post by phishyblankwaters


You want to know why they think it is a good idea? Because the American people are one of the most elite fighting forces on earth when it comes to defending it's freedom from tyranny. The Federal government wants to impose as much authority and will over the people as it can for the SHTF scenarios because an all out civil war would ensure eventually.