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

page: 6
206
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Mcupobob
So the source you provided lead me to a blog and the blogs source was the Washington post and this bill sounds like nothing you're telling me.


The overall bill totals $663 billion and would authorize spending for military personnel, weapons systems and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the fiscal year that began Oct. 1. The committee had approved the bill in June but met behind closed doors Tuesday to cut about $21 billion to fulfill new budget requirements.


WP
edit on 11/25/2011 by Mcupobob because: (no reason given)
Thank you for providing reason and calm reflection in an otherwise inflammatory thread.
I would recommend to all to do a little reading before jumping to conclusions.
Let's try some sanity folks, before we all grab our weapons and start shooting.


It seems just the slightest bit goofy that everyone is flinging pooh, hate and distress everywhere, when no one, apparently, has even read the source material before going haywire. But what the Hell do informed and knowledgeable people, who like to know who the enemy is before they open fire, count for?

Just askin'...
edit on 25-11-2011 by sigung86 because: Somebody moved the "W" key when I wasn't looking.




posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 


If any other nation said they had this power in the US, it would be an act of war. So... isn't this a declaration of war by the US against its own citizens? I'm seriously starting to feel that my taxes are funding a war against me now.


Backwards.

Every other nation would expect a battlefield enemy to be a military prisoner rather than extend its domestic Constitutional Rights over the enemy persons once in custody.

Only in the US is the thought that, maybe, a POW should have criminal and civil court access and Constitutional Rights. The Bill answer that new notion with a resounding "No!"

This is about US Al-Qaeda members captured on the battlefield (or in domestic cells) trying to get the domestic civil and criminal courts to gain their release because they are US citizens. Any other nation would just shoot them.

So, as for you, according to the bill, you would be safe unless you have:


“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.”


I know. That is not what the article linked in the OP led you to believe it said-- I wonder why that might be?



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
We have a choice. Go at them like the vicious mob we could be as one country united, or let them do as they please cowering with our tail in-between our legs. Would you rather be a Rottweiler or a Poodle? (Figuratively)



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
I said this was coming next

They already have been watching us for some time now. They already have a list of "enemy combatants in America,(I'm extremely peaceful, but that's still what they would call me due to my words that they don't like)" and they are watching us with a magnifying glass.
I said their next step is to lock up anyone who criticizes the government(I'm not talking about those who criticize democrats or republicans, they are going to lock up those who see past the false left-right paradigm).
edit on 25-11-2011 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
*cough* shill *cough*


Originally posted by Frira

So, as for you, according to the bill, you would be safe unless you have:


“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.”


I know. That is not what the article linked in the OP led you to believe it said-- I wonder why that might be?



Don't spew that B.S. propaganda that you have nothing to fear unless you're doing something wrong. Unless people do something now, they will keep adding things that are wrong. Eventually anyone who says that 9/11 was a conspiracy will be locked away. Or anyone who criticizes the government will be locked away.
Where's my right to free speech to be able to say "I support Al-Qaeda and I think they are right, and better people than Americans?" Because that is what this bill is trying to do...



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 


You just exercised your right to say it...The thing is, I do not understand how supporting one group of terrorists over another (according to you the US Government are terrorists) is different in core philosophy...



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by jeichelberg
 


By condoning the actions of the government in oppressing the people you are accomplice to their crimes against humanity.
Better to stand up and speak out against the tyrany of the state.
Can guarantee your beloved government doesnt give a damn about human life and will kill anyone with impunity even poor deluded individuals like yourself who blindly follow and wave your little flags cheering on the murder of innocents...
Maybe if your lucky your masters will grant you a swift death when your no longer of use to them.
But as with all things in life the choice is yours to make.. And its quite clear you've chosen to be a willing party to the crimes of the state..



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   
I looked up: National Defense Authorization Act

This is a military funding bill which is voted on and passed EVERY YEAR since 1986. It has been voted on since it’s inception in 1985:

thomas.loc.gov...:SN02638:@@@L&summ2=m&


Bill Summary & Status
99th Congress (1985 - 1986)
S.2638
All Information

S.2638
Latest Title: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1987
Sponsor: Sen Goldwater, Barry [AZ] (introduced 7/8/1986) Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: H.RES.591, H.R.4428, S.2132, S.2199, S.2218, S.2641, S.2642
Latest Major Action: 11/14/1986 Became Public Law No: 99-661.

********************** *********************

www.govtrack.us...

S. 1298: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994
103rd Congress: 1993-1994
An Act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1994 for militray activities of the Department of Defense, for militray construction, and for defense programs of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.
****************************** ****************************
thomas.loc.gov...:H.R.2461.ENR:

H.R.2461 -- National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR)


************** ********************* *****************
www.gpo.gov...

112TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION S. 1867
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of
the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.

*************** ***************************** ***************

This is what I did not find in any of the above sites.

“Sec 962” or "The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision"

If one were to look in the current 682 page bill and all the prior bills, "The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision" it is not there. A google search will lead to many results with the identical “ring around the rosy” chase your tail information. I haven’t figured out where the original “scare” came from. I think somebody is putting words in another’s mouth trying to scare monger and stir the pot.
edit on 25-11-2011 by Gridrebel because:



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Expat888
reply to post by jeichelberg
 


By condoning the actions of the government in oppressing the people you are accomplice to their crimes against humanity.
Better to stand up and speak out against the tyrany of the state.
Can guarantee your beloved government doesnt give a damn about human life and will kill anyone with impunity even poor deluded individuals like yourself who blindly follow and wave your little flags cheering on the murder of innocents...
Maybe if your lucky your masters will grant you a swift death when your no longer of use to them.
But as with all things in life the choice is yours to make.. And its quite clear you've chosen to be a willing party to the crimes of the state..


You know what? This is the second time you have stated I condone actions of the state without knowing anything about me or what I do...I am getting tired of it...I will report this also...



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Gridrebel
 


Thank you for posting this information...It appears as if there is considerable twisting of the actual contents of the words in the bill, if not outright LIES and FALSIFICATION...



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   
NO NO NO, DONT PASS THIS THIS IS JUST LIKE EVERYTHING AND CONSPIRATERS have said for years.. and its happening. just like ron paul is saying look ppl... now if someone says or wants to imprison without trial..
look what will happen think about it. dont be so foolish



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
*cough* shill *cough*


Originally posted by Frira

So, as for you, according to the bill, you would be safe unless you have:


“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.”


I know. That is not what the article linked in the OP led you to believe it said-- I wonder why that might be?



Don't spew that B.S. propaganda that you have nothing to fear unless you're doing something wrong. Unless people do something now, they will keep adding things that are wrong. Eventually anyone who says that 9/11 was a conspiracy will be locked away. Or anyone who criticizes the government will be locked away.
Where's my right to free speech to be able to say "I support Al-Qaeda and I think they are right, and better people than Americans?" Because that is what this bill is trying to do...


Pardon me for reading. I can't help it-- I suffer from a high IQ, like to do my own research and apply reason. It's a hobby.

So, fine, let the Al-Qaeda POW's loose. The citizens know how to deal with it, if the law will not.

As you were.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 


If the US is part of the battle field, WHO is making it that way?
oil!oil!oil!oil! greed!greed!greed! power!power!power!
If I remember properly the dark part of karma has to be evened out before achieving nirvana.
They will need raincoats soon. Peace and light to all!



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Well if this is to be the language used if this bill becomes law:


(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 force


We now have before us a very disturbing precedent being set, and that is RETROACTIVE LEGISLATION... something they researched so hard to accomplish in the case of Julian Assange but failed to connect the dots for...

This makes it legal now, to create retroactive punishment, for laws broken that have not been introduced and ratified yet.

Of a more keener note...

IF the language in the above quote is to be used in passage of this legislation, someone with a set of balls needs to man up and cuff Barack Obama directly, for his unconstitutional move to depose the Qaddafi regime, giving financial, military, and logistical support directly to known and established Al Queda terrorists in the process, even making it possible for Al Queda to acuire hundreds of missles, some supposedly with nuclear capabilities.

It's a proven, documented fact, and Obama would be, and should be, the first to feel the bite of such legislation.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   


including any person who has committed a belligerent act


this is the part im getting stuck on...what is considered a belligerent act?



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
It doesn’t appear as if anyone wants to hear the truth because, too many here are having way too much fun conjuring up conspiracies about the bill. Have any of you looked at the OP information and researched it?

Riiiight. Didn’t think so.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   
The end of the world on 12-21-12 is starting to look pretty good about now.
I look around me and see all that is going on now days and think that the world coming to an end may not be such a bad thing. All I know is some one needs to push the reset button
CTRL-ALT-DELE



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
I'd like to say I'm shocked...but really I'm not. We deserve what's coming to us, we really do. If the people of Iran should be bombed because they have a couple of idiots in charge what should be done to us? I would like to say more but I do live in America...for now...and I'd hate to go missing...



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gridrebel
It doesn’t appear as if anyone wants to hear the truth because, too many here are having way too much fun conjuring up conspiracies about the bill. Have any of you looked at the OP information and researched it?

Riiiight. Didn’t think so.


Sometimes a strong flame is merit of adding fuel to continue to burn. Sometimes the side information that can spawn from allowing a thought to blossom is invaluable. I have seen more random OP's than this produce note-worthy intel. Its more about the point. An OP like this can show what the 'people' think of a given situation.

I feel a 'bill' like this is possible/close to becoming reality. So I enjoy the opportunity to exercise my thoughts on the subject.


ThatGuy45



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Heyyo_yoyo
 


"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 force"

This report was done in 2006

law.shu.edu...





new topics
top topics
 
206
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join