Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

S. 1867: National Defense Authorization Act - Some Clarifictions - Does NOT allow US Citizen detenti

page: 10
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by PapaKrok
 


This is a look into what is coming in terms of defining who is, and isn't considered detainable:
news.yahoo.com...

Special attention should be given to this statement:

"Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, is equipped to make military battlefield targeting decisions about who qualifies as an enemy."

As I said, the POTUS decides who lives and dies according to his/her edicts...fie on codified law.

As America will be defined as a "battleground", we now know that the Executive branch intends to exercise its discretion as to "military battlefield targeting decisions about who qualifies as an enemy".

Yikes!
edit on 1-12-2011 by PapaKrok because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


So I guess you are just going to ignore the fact you were wrong about the structure of the bill.

you said and I quote



Section 4 - the waiver section continues by specifically stating in Section 4 - subsection B paragraph 1. US Citizens are NOT subject to the law.


where is subsection A of section 4?? Bill writers don't know the alphabet??

here is the structure of section 1032 so you can comprehend your mistake ...

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)

CLEARLY YOU CAN'T READ THE BILL CORRECTLY!!
edit on 1-12-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-12-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by PapaKrok
 



Why am I not surprised? Her eius the remainder of info for your Police comment and Canada.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 1-12-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)


Aaaaaaaaargh! Anyone feel like they didn't get the World Domination Memo?



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by MegaMind
 



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.


I'm not wrong about the structure of the bill. That would be you.

The Bill does not apply to US Citizens.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by MegaMind
 



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.


I'm not wrong about the structure of the bill. That would be you.

The Bill does not apply to US Citizens.



Again if there is a section (4)(b) as you assert where is section (4)(a)?? hmmmm.... where??

You are becoming increasingly transparent. Your lack of defending your flaw in the basic reading of the law shows that you intend to mislead people and are unconcerned with the truth.
edit on 1-12-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-12-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-12-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
A clarification from the bills sponsor as to his intentions:
McCain speaks about who is to be detained...

www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Sorry, I went to bed last night. Anyway, I have thus far failed to see you address the fact that in the bill it makes very clear that an exemption/waiver can be made if the "secretary" (it doesn't even specify which one) writes to Congress that such a waiver is in the best interests of national security. It's that simple.

So, if the "secretary" (of the state? defense?) writes to Congress stating that myself or my neighbor deserves a waiver for the requirements of being detained/imprisoned, Congress can approve that waiver and voila! Citizenship is waived for the purposes of detaining a suspected "terrorist".

Edit: Sorry, you are addressing it now. And, wouldn't you know, denying it.
edit on 12/1/2011 by OrphenFire because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by MegaMind

So when someone steals laws against theft go poof?

When there is no one to enforce them, laws are worthless.

Do you really believe that in the middle of a firefight, a soldier who is dodging bullets cares about the rights of the guy shooting at him? Do you think that, after a battle, a soldier who is low on ammo will not raid the body of a fallen combatant for more? Theft is a useless term in war, as is murder and assault. In a battlefield, there are no police and thus no law.

You apparently think war is some sort of game where people just break rules. No. War has only one rule - kill the enemy - and anyone who breaks it dies.

It's no wonder so many of our soldiers die in silly 'police actions'... it seems most people do not even understand the concept of war. This bill does nothing more than specify actions the military must legally take concerning enemy combatants during a wartime conflict. Nothing more. If someone who is a citizen decides they want to side with Al Qaeda in a firefight on US soil... well, I'm sorry I'm not all broken up over the civil rights of someone who wants to kill citizens. Outside of that, I will defend their rights tooth and nail.

Welcome to reality.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by OrphenFire
 


Its been addressed and addressed and addressed time and again. The law does not apply to US Citizens. We now have members of Congress introducing amendments to clarify the language to claer up the confusion you guys seem to be having.

It does not apply to US Citizens.

Ive stated the reasons and citied the sources and provided information to support it all, where as you guys have not.

There is nothing left to debate about. You guys have your view, I have mine and its obvious we aren't going to change each others minds. Even when members of congress are stating clarification you guys ignore it and push on.

Thats fine... When legislation is passed or dies we can come back and point fingers at who is wrong. Until then feel free to argue with Megamind over what the definition of is is.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by MegaMind
(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.





can someone clear this up...


the way i read the above sentence is:

A Person that is detaining another person..under the Military Custody Provisions...
Does Not have to be a U.S. Citizen...



and that is a lot different meaning than what is trying to be implied--
i.e.: a Military Person cannot hold a Civilian Citizen in Military Custody... what-so-ever



i have to ask... who walks around with Citizenship papers on their person?

So, if the National Guardman guarding a hurricane damaged city, wants to detain you , so you do not put yourself in harms way... the Guardsman cannot order that Citizen to stop or be arrested/detained into custody...



this is getting too quicksandy to me !
and that raises the 'smell' issue... If even parts of a bill do not smell right---then toss it ALL out
edit on 1-12-2011 by St Udio because: emphasis



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by MegaMind

So when someone steals laws against theft go poof?

When there is no one to enforce them, laws are worthless.

Do you really believe that in the middle of a firefight, a soldier who is dodging bullets cares about the rights of the guy shooting at him? Do you think that, after a battle, a soldier who is low on ammo will not raid the body of a fallen combatant for more? Theft is a useless term in war, as is murder and assault. In a battlefield, there are no police and thus no law.

TheRedneck


No and BTW what does that have to do with anything?

You never did answer the question - which is the greater threat Tyranny or Terrorism? And do you think we are at risk of Tyranny in this country?
edit on 1-12-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by St Udio
 


That section is only about the military being REQUIRED to detain people and US citizens are exempt from the military having to detain these people. It does not mean they cannot OR ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DETAIN these people, ONLY THAT THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO.

So many here want you to believe that US citizens are exempt from detainment. They refuse to read the bill as it is written. Some can't even get the structure of the bill correct and refuse to address their own flaw in reading.

I think Xcathdra is hoping everyone will over look his blatant misreading of the structure of the bill. He thinks that paragraph (b)(1) under sec 1032 is part of (a)(4) because it comes after (a)(4). His understanding of the structure of the bill is laughable.
edit on 1-12-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by MegaMind

So when someone steals laws against theft go poof?

When there is no one to enforce them, laws are worthless.

Do you really believe that in the middle of a firefight, a soldier who is dodging bullets cares about the rights of the guy shooting at him? Do you think that, after a battle, a soldier who is low on ammo will not raid the body of a fallen combatant for more? Theft is a useless term in war, as is murder and assault. In a battlefield, there are no police and thus no law.

You apparently think war is some sort of game where people just break rules. No. War has only one rule - kill the enemy - and anyone who breaks it dies.

It's no wonder so many of our soldiers die in silly 'police actions'... it seems most people do not even understand the concept of war. This bill does nothing more than specify actions the military must legally take concerning enemy combatants during a wartime conflict. Nothing more. If someone who is a citizen decides they want to side with Al Qaeda in a firefight on US soil... well, I'm sorry I'm not all broken up over the civil rights of someone who wants to kill citizens. Outside of that, I will defend their rights tooth and nail.

Welcome to reality.

TheRedneck


I dunno. One man's terrorist is another man's hero....
McCain is using "most American's" as a yardstick to validate the belief system behind his proposed bill. What do most conservative Americans want? You asked for this, remember that...

americaisconservative.blogspot.com...

Once again, listen to the bill's Daddy for intention:


Originally posted by PapaKrok
A clarification from the bills sponsor as to his intentions:
McCain speaks about who is to be detained...

www.youtube.com...
edit on 1-12-2011 by PapaKrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by St Udio
 


The legislation does not apply to US citizens, contrary to the belief of some.

State Guard units are not subject to posse commitatus because they answer to the adjutant general of the state they are in, and their commander in chief is the State Governor, not the President.

The law specifically deals with terrorism, uses the MCA of 2009 as well as Public Law 107-40 (Use of force for Afghanistan and war on terror). Those references specifically define the legislation as to its use.

There are other pieces of legislation already in place from 2001 as well as Supreme Court rulings that define this legislation as well.

Instead of reading, people feel the need to ignore the info to continue their agenda of ow evil the government is.

Dont take my word for it though. I encourage you to research the info before making up your mind.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Holy hell. I have been lurking around for the past couple weeks, considered chiming in a couple times but resisted the urge. But no longer can I hold back...

MegaMind, I feel your pain.

Xcathdra, really? How do you not understand that negating the REQUIREMENT to detain, is not the same is negating the ABILITY to detain? Also, you have failed to acknowledge the ouster of your false premise that somehow section (b) is part of subsection (4) {the waiver}? Do you think the bill's authors decided to change the hierarchy of the formatting mid-section?

All that needs to happen for you to be indefinitely detained is for some high ranking official to declare that you have in some way committed a "belligerent" act towards the government of the US, poof, your life is over. No right to trial, no rights to anything, until the War on Terror is over...which, except in the case of major revolution, will be never.

Good luck with that.

Peace,
Udon



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by UdonNiedtuno
Holy hell. I have been lurking around for the past couple weeks, considered chiming in a couple times but resisted the urge. But no longer can I hold back...

MegaMind, I feel your pain.

Xcathdra, really? How do you not understand that negating the REQUIREMENT to detain, is not the same is negating the ABILITY to detain? Also, you have failed to acknowledge the ouster of your false premise that somehow section (b) is part of subsection (4) {the waiver}? Do you think the bill's authors decided to change the hierarchy of the formatting mid-section?

All that needs to happen for you to be indefinitely detained is for some high ranking official to declare that you have in some way committed a "belligerent" act towards the government of the US, poof, your life is over. No right to trial, no rights to anything, until the War on Terror is over...which, except in the case of major revolution, will be never.

Good luck with that.

Peace,
Udon


damn for a second I thought I was in the twilight zone. Thanks for confirming my sanity.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by UdonNiedtuno
 


Since the law doesn't apply to US citizens, I'm not worried.

As for Megaminds post - He is wrong, plain and simple. He feels he is not. Whats the point of continuing down that road since it wont result in anything but me saying he is wrong and him saying im wrong.

The structure of the legislation in the legislation and what I posted are correct. The sections all are part of the same legislation, they all refer to parts contained, and at he end of the section is specifically addresses US citizens and resident Aliens.

US Citizens are exempt from the legislation. It does not apply to US citizens.

Congressmen are wanting the language clarified to be more specific, presumably for people in this thread, that it does not apply to US citizens and does not apply on American soil.

I guess those members of Congress are wrong as well?



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Xcathdra, do you still insist that (b)(1) is a subsection of (a)(4) ??

Yes or No ... will you answer? hmmm? can you?

Maybe you should get your boss involved at this point, clearly this conversation is above your pay grade.
edit on 1-12-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by XPLodER
so the AMENDMENT made the CITIZENS exempt from the law doing a run around on the constitution.


What the hell are you talking about? Exempt from the Constitution? Are you sure you are in the right thread? You may need to go back and actually read the 2 sections before posting. So far what you posted makes absolutely no sense.

Let me help you out some -
Can a US citizen be arrested by the Active duty Military? - No because of the federal law - posse commitatus.
Can Congress repeal that law and allow the Active duty military engage in civilian law enforcement? Absolutely yes, they can.

Is it a violation of the US or State Constitutions? Nope.

Would you prefer legislation be enacted that doesn't specifically exclude US citizens, leaving the stats as vague and unambiguous?

The sponsor of the amendment made it a point to specifically address the issue of a US citizen. Amazing how people get pissed even at that.
edit on 1-12-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



Republican Senator Lindsey Graham’s own words on the Senate floor.

“In summary here, [section] 1032, the military custody provision, which has waivers and a lot of flexibility doesn’t apply to American citizens. [Section] 1031, the statement of authority to detain does apply to American citizens, and it designates the world as the battlefield including the homeland,” Graham said.


THE WORLD AS A BATTLE FIELD including THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
the only quasi legal way of pretending this is not against the constitution, as to add an amendment that excludes american citizens or it would directly violate the constitution

answers?
world wide battle field for a country with known human rights violations?
and you support this?


no more lies X

a WORLD WIDE BATTLEFIELD designation ?
we are a civil in law and in operation society you designate my country a battle field?

but america to by this new definition is a "battlefield" and can only be called this by excluding the definition of a citizen from being on that battle field as a citizen.

a citizen is a member of a civil society,
like america
like my country.

we have human rights.
we are human

military is unacepteble in our civil society, it is our societies choice.

why give military powers to your military force if the objective is to NOT use?

and if this is how the military treats the rest of the world,
it wont be long before they look inwards and they will just change the definition of a citizen to excude everyone,

this is not aceptable behaviour as we have human rights over our lives and civil societies.

we are alies we are brothers we all seek piece,
indefinate detention is a breach of the constitution when considering the acual constitutions of the contries you wish to "operate" in

xploder



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


repeat the line again and again and it wont make it any more true

Since the law doesn't apply to US citizens, I'm not worried.


double speak,

the law is so disgusting that if it acually applied to the citizens that it would be on its face a breach of the constitutional powers and would not stand up as a law in a court.

so to enable this legislation to pass you exempt citizens and pretend to favour them while doing so

you are transperent
if this law acually aplied to americans it would be un constitutional,
when it suits them this "small change will then take away the protection this cluase gives.

THEN YOU TOO will be the enemey on the battlefield.

you COMPLETLY dont see how to attack countries civil society and over ride our laws could cause us trouble?

are you too living in a vacum?

xploder





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join