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

page: 9
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by Xcathdra
 
well i tried to show you through the law and the bill and the wording with reference to them to no avail, but to that still have doubt , the US will be a classified as a Battlefield, just be aware of what you say, do, or post. It might get you to Git MO current.com...



Im good.. There is enough paranoia from certain people in this thread to cover us all.

If you decide to take the time to read the info I posted let me know and we can pick this up again some time.




posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


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



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 
do you think protesting the right for animals is a terrorist ?
or saying that you are for the right to drive with out a license is a terrorist? if you say no your not then you are a terrorist , so says the FBI from there web site www.fbi.gov... who are and what groups?

You can help. Be alert to potential signs of domestic terror plots and planning and contact us immediately with any information or leads.

Other domestic terror threats:
- Eco-terrorists and animal rights extremists
- Sovereign citizens movement
- Anarchist Extremism
- Militia Extremism
which group do you fall in?

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



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


you obscure the point,
WHY WAS THE USA,
made exempt from something?
WHY was the usa NOW having to be made EXEMPT
was it because changing the DEFINITION of what a battle field was,
now made AMERICAN soil the BATTLEFIELD as well and that was a DIRECT violation of the constitution,
so the AMENDMENT made the CITIZENS exempt from the law doing a run around on the constitution.

this is a very dangerously enlarging of what was "a war zone" ie iraq into a world sence in which america will be a "battle field" but american citizens are exempt from the consiquences to not directly violate the constitition.

this expands live active war zone rules to every nation of the earth including the usa.

this is a direct power grab of war zone world,
and military are now supernational to any individual govenment,
as they are deleared a war zone.

battle field world

answer me X

xploder



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   

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)



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


why was there a need to suddenly pass a law expanding the use of the definition battle field and why does it encompass the earth?

the only reason that the law is written the way it is,
if they were any more direct with the legilsation it would be a violation of the constitution.

xploder



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 


Please, please please learn the difference in local and state law and federal law.
Please learn the difference between this legislation, which specifically is restricted to the war on terror - PL 107-40.
Please learn the difference between non citizen and US citizen.

The arguments you are trying to make have nothing at all to do with this legislation. This legislation is specific to the war on terror in Afghanistan.

It has nothing at all to do with the war on drugs, protesting, OWS, or a person not liking this legislation and criticizing the government.

When you guys intentionally ignore key parts of the amendment, your paranoia goes into overdrive and any information presented is ignored.

I say this because you and I have now had this conversation twice in this thread. You can reword it any way you want, it still is not going to fall under this legislation. Protests are not Federal jurisdiction, they are local and state.



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


why is it that us citizens are now having to be exempt from something?
its because the definition of what a battle field was and now will be, it encompasses the united states of america,
there definition of battle field changes and this enlarges the battle field to every nation on the earth, but the side effect of that is now your trying to pass a law that contravines the constitution and would not be upheld, so by crafting it in a way that doesnt remove the protections of the constitution it is then not a direct violation.

very crafty very well written to confuse, so it makes it easy to obsucate the true meaning,

and as your self why did they feel the need to make the whole world a battle field?

xploder



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


why was there a need to suddenly pass a law expanding the use of the definition battle field and why does it encompass the earth?

the only reason that the law is written the way it is,
if they were any more direct with the legilsation it would be a violation of the constitution.

xploder


It does NOT expand, it DEFINES.

You guys need to pay attention. This legislation is based on other laws already passed as well as Supreme Court rulings. This legislation, dealing with who can be detained, what conditions must be met etc is NOT new.

Hence the reference to the Military Commission Act of 2009. When Bush signed the 2006 act into law, it was used to detain and deny rights to Jose Padilla, a US Citizen. The Supreme Court got the case and said absolutely NOT to that possibility. It also told the government the Supreme Court CANNOT be removed from the legal process, either under Domestic law or under Military Law.

The following MCA's of 2008 and 2009 addressed the courts concerns and incorporated their rulings from other cases, like hamdi and hamden vs. Rumsfeld, which specifically dealt with foreign nationals as well as foreign nationals who are citizens of a country that has separate bi lateral agreements with outside of the UN, namely the UK.

Before you guys continue to complain, maybe you should go back and research ALL of the info, instead of just the parts you want. The tip off was the specific reference to public law 107-40 and the MCA of 2009, letting you guys and everyone else who reads the legislation know there is a back story and case law / actions that define this new language.

You guys accuse the government of acting inappropriately and without thinking some things through. May I respectfully suggest you extend that observation to yourself as well?

This is NOT a new Law
This does NOT apply do US Citizens.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Do you plan on answering that (b)(1) of sec1032 is not part of (a)(4) as you have stated more than once???

If you keep asserting it is where is (4)(a) ??
edit on 1-12-2011 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


no i am saying the law if not for the specific clause of american citizens would be a direct violation of the constution and therefore not lawful, so in this case the law is so illegal that it can only pass on the legal tecnicallity that it does not violate the constitution by exempting US citizens.

it is so oderous that to attempt to pass it without the exception would almost be UN american to do so.
this is legal trickery and you attempt to obscure and miss direct?

WHY DID AMERICA SUDDENLY BECOME A BATTLE FIELD?
WHY the sudden need to exempt "Citizens" from the rules of a battle field

the expansion of the term "battle field" causes the legal problem of how to exclude citizens or the expansion of the term battle field would be unlawful due to the constitution.

WHY do americans need to be excluded from taking part in a battle field?
because the law seeks to violate the constitution by enlarging a definition of a single word,

so they try this to ligitimize the new definition in law

xploder



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Wow.. You just are not understanding this at all man. Please take the time to read the legislation, ALL of it, and get back to me.

Your argument to date has nothing at all to do with this legislation, and for the life of me I cant figure out what your trying to argue.

Some clarification would be appreciated.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


and your answer is look they have done it before this point in time,
and with other legislation non the less,

if you want to point to passages of law look no further than your own constitution,
unless you want to talk about laws that contravene the acual document.

this law is so bearly legal that to attempt to pass it shows absolute contempt for the american people and the people of the world.

we live in piece and wish it to stay that way

xploder



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Oh good God, by all means lets use a plain text reading of the Constitution. Would you like to be the person to explain to women and minorities why they dont have a right to vote anymore?

When you decide to address the topic instead wildly changing the topic with every post let me know.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by MegaMind
reply to post by PapaKrok
 


I looked up Cosmoline, which I have never heard of before, and I'm not quite sure what you mean.

another term for shinola? Sh!t?

Could you please elaborate?

Maybe I'm just being a little thick - not above that happening from time to time.


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


Guns are packed in cosmoline for long term storage....crap, now I'm an extremist...



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by PapaKrok
 


Hey! maybe we should all go hide in Canada?
Crap, looks like that option is evaporating as well:
www.thestar.com...



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
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.

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



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
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)



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   

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.

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



Thank you for posting this. To clarify, which means it never applied to US citizens in the first place. If it did, it would modify the bill.

As I said, this bill does NOT apply to US Citizens. Contrary to Rand Pauls info, Us citizens cannot be sent to gitmo either. Politics for the loss.
edit on 1-12-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
well the Tea party gets it www.southfloridateaparty.net... from the link

S.1867 National Defense Authorization Act bill allows the military to capture and detain American Citizens who the Government feels are threats to America. The Army was never suppose to be allowed to patrol Americans on American soil. If this bill passes, Tea Party , Code Pink and others may find themselves political enemies and be abducted without any charges and thrown into military prisons for simply protesting. NO EXCUSES and no Forth Amendment. Ask your Senators if they wish to do this to please passing the Udall Amendment, which will put more congressional power over the President to decide which American Citizens should be picked up without questioning by the Army as this bill suggests.
we all know what happened to the Udall amendment if failed. who writes for them?

Ask your Senators if they wish to do this to please passing the Udall Amendment,
edit on 1-12-2011 by bekod because: editting





top topics
 
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join