It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Senate Bill 1867: LEO's Are Terrorists. Will The Military Arrest Them?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Senate Bill 1867: LEO's Are Terrorists. Will The Military Arrest Them?

So if this thing passes will the military come in and arrest the LEO's who are terrorizing OWS protestors and others who are exercising their constitutionally protected rights? After all, the LEO's do meet the bill's criteria for terrorists. Take the story below as an example of the terror inflicted by the police:



My Occupy LA Arrest
by Patrick Meighan
Infowars.com
December 7, 2011
From Patrick Meighan’s blog, My Occupy LA Arrest.


My name is Patrick Meighan, and I’m a husband, a father, a writer on the Fox animated sitcom “Family Guy”, and a member of the Unitarian Universalist Community Church of Santa Monica.

I was arrested at about 1 a.m. Wednesday morning with 291 other people at Occupy LA. I was sitting in City Hall Park with a pillow, a blanket, and a copy of Thich Nhat Hanh’s “Being Peace” when 1,400 heavily-armed LAPD officers in paramilitary SWAT gear streamed in. I was in a group of about 50 peaceful protestors who sat Indian-style, arms interlocked, around a tent (the symbolic image of the Occupy movement). The LAPD officers encircled us, weapons drawn, while we chanted “We Are Peaceful” and “We Are Nonviolent” and “Join Us.”

As we sat there, encircled, a separate team of LAPD officers used knives to slice open every personal tent in the park. They forcibly removed anyone sleeping inside, and then yanked out and destroyed any personal property inside those tents, scattering the contents across the park. They then did the same with the communal property of the Occupy LA movement. For example, I watched as the LAPD destroyed a pop-up canopy tent that, until that moment, had been serving as Occupy LA’s First Aid and Wellness tent, in which volunteer health professionals gave free medical care to absolutely anyone who requested it. As it happens, my family had personally contributed that exact canopy tent to Occupy LA, at a cost of several hundred of my family’s dollars. As I watched, the LAPD sliced that canopy tent to shreds, broke the telescoping poles into pieces and scattered the detritus across the park. Note that these were the objects described in subsequent mainstream press reports as “30 tons of garbage” that was “abandoned” by Occupy LA: personal property forcibly stolen from us, destroyed in front of our eyes and then left for maintenance workers to dispose of while we were sent to prison.

When the LAPD finally began arresting those of us interlocked around the symbolic tent, we were all ordered by the LAPD to unlink from each other (in order to facilitate the arrests). Each seated, nonviolent protester beside me who refused to cooperate by unlinking his arms had the following done to him: an LAPD officer would forcibly extend the protestor’s legs, grab his left foot, twist it all the way around and then stomp his boot on the insole, pinning the protestor’s left foot to the pavement, twisted backwards. Then the LAPD officer would grab the protestor’s right foot and twist it all the way the other direction until the non-violent protestor, in incredible agony, would shriek in pain and unlink from his neighbor.

It was horrible to watch, and apparently designed to terrorize the rest of us. At least I was sufficiently terrorized. I unlinked my arms voluntarily and informed the LAPD officers that I would go peacefully and cooperatively. I stood as instructed, and then I had my arms wrenched behind my back, and an officer hyperextended my wrists into my inner arms. It was super violent, it hurt really really bad, and he was doing it on purpose. When I involuntarily recoiled from the pain, the LAPD officer threw me face-first to the pavement. He had my hands behind my back, so I landed right on my face. The officer dropped with his knee on my back and ground my face into the pavement. It really, really hurt and my face started bleeding and I was very scared. I begged for mercy and I promised that I was honestly not resisting and would not resist.

My hands were then zipcuffed very tightly behind my back, where they turned blue. I am now suffering nerve damage in my right thumb and palm.
www.infowars.com...




posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 


Was it legal for them to camp in that park?

Were they denying others access to that park or did they move aside when others wished to use it?

Is camping out at night truly protest?

Were they causing harm to innocent business owners and workers in that area?

Did they know they were violating the law by camping there and do it anyway?

Were there any illegal activities going on in the camp or in the tents?

I think this is a case where both sides are wrong which is so often true in these cases.

As to your premise relating to Bill 1867, are you not just being irrational?

Do you think that camping out is meaningful protest?

How do you feel about the Movements almost complete loss of support due to behavior?

Edited to add horrible source where stories are fabricated for attention all the time. Remember the military member who turned out to be an Actor?



edit on 12/7/2011 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Is your position that the police do not terrorize? It is my position that they do. Under 1867 they are guilty of terrorism and are subject to military arrest.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 



Quality Service Is Your Right The motto of the Los Angeles Police Department is: "To Protect and to Serve." This Department is dedicated to providing the finest police service possible. In order to continue to provide quality service to the community, we need your assistance. This is your Police Department and we welcome your comments. We encourage you to let us know about the quality of service you receive from our employees.

If you wish to commend the actions of employees of this Department, you may do so by writing a letter to the captain of the station in your Area, or to the Chief of Police. Verbal commendations may also be given to any Department supervisor.

If you believe that the conduct of an employee was inappropriate, you may request to speak to a supervisor at any police station, Internal Affairs Group, or the Police Commission. This will result in the immediate investigation of your complaint. Internal Affairs Group and The Police Commission is located at the Police Administration Building, 100 West 1st Street. Professional Standards Bureau, is located in the Bradbury Building, 304 S. Broadway Street, Room 280.

If you do not wish to make the complaint in person, you may obtain a "Complaint of Employee Misconduct" form from any Los Angeles Police station, the Police Commission, or any City Council field office. You will be provided with a pamphlet which will assist you in filing your complaint.

If you are unable to pick up a form at any of these locations, you may call our 24-hour, toll-free number at 1-800-339-6868 to file a complaint or request the form, or click below to access the appropriate printable form.


1-800-339-6868

www.lapdonline.org...

I think people should spam complaints about this kind of behavior. Let them know we are watching and we are not impressed.

Here is a complaint form as well.

www.lapdonline.org...



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 


Please read my post. I clearly said this is a case where "both sides are wrong".

When you purposefully cause a confrontation with police by denying others their rights or violating the law, you cannot proclaim innocence. That is why the Movements support dropped to nothing.

The Police acted with to much force and aggression if it's all true and not a staged confrontation. No problem there.

I doubt many genuine protestors with good intent are still involved. Living in a park is not protest.
edit on 12/7/2011 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


The police destroyed tons of property and strew it all over the park.

The police engaged in action that very easily could have broken people's limbs.

I don't consider this appropriate action against a bunch of whining hippies, particularly the part about throwing ripped up possessions all over the park; I fail to see how an extreme act of littering has anything to do with evicting them.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Terror by police is a state sponsored tactic of law enforcement. SWAT teams dont wear black balaclavas in temperate weather for climate concerns or to make a fashion statement - but rather to make a statement of intimidation (maybe in places like Mexico they serve the function of anonymity also but that is irrelevant here in the US).



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


The Constitution guarantees one the right to assemble and protest. It also guarantees one the right to not have one's face ground into the pavement as a consequence of exercising the right to assemble and protest.

It's really pretty cut and dried.

Oh, but I forgot: Those who proclaim the Constitution are considered domestic terrorists these days, so I should be prepared to have my face ground into the pavement as well.

Back to the question: Will the military arrest LEO's who terrorize?



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by this_is_who_we_are
Senate Bill 1867: LEO's Are Terrorists. Will The Military Arrest Them?

So if this thing passes will the military come in and arrest the LEO's who are terrorizing OWS protestors and others who are exercising their constitutionally protected rights? After all, the LEO's do meet the bill's criteria for terrorists.

Read the bill again and more carefully. No one is accusing the police of being covered persons under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution of 2001. That's the standard. The police don't meet it.
edit on 7-12-2011 by FurvusRexCaeli because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli
No one is accusing the police of being covered persons under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution of 2001. That's the standard. The police don't meet it.
edit on 7-12-2011 by FurvusRexCaeli because: (no reason given)


Well they should meet it. The spirit of the law demands it, if not the letter of the law. Those who terrorize are terrorists, LEO's or not.

I'm reminded of FDR's Four Freedoms Speech of 1941:


The Four Freedoms were goals articulated by US President Franklin D. Roosevelt on January 6, 1941. In an address known as the Four Freedoms speech (technically the 1941 State of the Union address), he proposed four fundamental freedoms that people "everywhere in the world" ought to enjoy:
Freedom of speech and expression
Freedom of worship
Freedom from want
Freedom from fear
en.wikipedia.org...


Do you feel more free to express your beliefs these days? Are you free from fear of illegal arrest for exercising your constitutional rights. Does the prospect of being the victim of State Sponsored Terror bother you? The military has an oath: to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. LEO"s acting unlawfully are domestic terrorists. The military is obligated to act.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck
 


I already said they acted wrongly



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   
You do not have a constitutional right to occupy a park for an indefinite amount of time, taking that public space away from others and defecating all over the place. This tread is sad. You really are going to compare a cop roughly arresting someone to a terrorist? How fragile are you? Talk about 1st world problems.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 


All I'm getting from this is you are being irrational and spoiling for a fight. My proof lies in your responses.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1
You do not have a constitutional right to occupy a park for an indefinite amount of time, taking that public space away from others and defecating all over the place. This tread is sad. You really are going to compare a cop roughly arresting someone to a terrorist? How fragile are you? Talk about 1st world problems.




Originally posted by Domo1
Q: You really are going to compare a cop roughly arresting someone to a terrorist?
A: Yes.

Q:How fragile are you?
A: I would think that I'm as fragile as, oh let's say... Scott Olsen:



And I would imagine that you are as fragile as him or anybody else as well. Is this really what you want to see happening to people?



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are
 


All I'm getting from this is you are being irrational and spoiling for a fight. My proof lies in your responses.


Spoiling for a fight? No. I want to see one thing:

I want to see more of this:


And less of this:

Our founders gave us the right to be free of this.
edit on 12/7/2011 by this_is_who_we_are because: photo



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   
LEO's are citizens. They, along with all citizens and legal residents, are exempted from Section 1031 by subsection 1031(e) and from Section 1032 by subsection 1032(b).

Moot argument.

TheRedneck

edit on 12/7/2011 by TheRedneck because: typo in section numbers



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
LEO's are citizens. They, along with all citizens and legal residents, are exempted from Section 1031 by subsection 1031(e) and from Section 1032 by subsection 1032(b).

Moot argument.

TheRedneck

edit on 12/7/2011 by TheRedneck because: typo in section numbers


There are a number of sources who would readily disagree with you including the ACLU. Be that as it may:


This is terrorism:

LAPD Descends on Occupy LA and Destroys an American Flag


This is not:


The question is: Who can you trust?
I'll put my money on those sworn to uphold our rights, not tear them down.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by this_is_who_we_are
Well they should meet it. The spirit of the law demands it, if not the letter of the law. Those who terrorize are terrorists, LEO's or not.

The spirit of the AUMF authorizes the government to use force against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. No more. It does not cover any other foreign or domestic terrorist group. It definitely doesn't cover cops. If you told the 107th Congress they were authorizing the military to arrest police officers for civil rights violations, they'd laugh at you.


The Four Freedoms were goals articulated by US President Franklin D. Roosevelt on January 6, 1941. In an address known as the Four Freedoms speech (technically the 1941 State of the Union address), he proposed four fundamental freedoms that people "everywhere in the world" ought to enjoy:
Freedom of speech and expression
Freedom of worship
Freedom from want
Freedom from fear
en.wikipedia.org...



Do you feel more free to express your beliefs these days?

More free than when FDR spoke those words in 1941? Yes, absolutely. We've lost (or given up) ground in a few privacy-related areas, but we've expanded access to the polls, we have more outlets for free speech, women can occupy many more jobs with equal pay, Jim Crow laws have been overturned, LGBT rights are increasing every year ... we have more freedom of expression now than we have ever had in our history.


Are you free from fear of illegal arrest for exercising your constitutional rights. Does the prospect of being the victim of State Sponsored Terror bother you? The military has an oath: to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. LEO"s acting unlawfully are domestic terrorists. The military is obligated to act.

Yes, no, and they're not. Under Posse Comitatus and its implementing regulations, the military can only be used for law enforcement pursuant to an act of Congress ... and you don't have one. What you have is a professional military that (ideally) follows all its legal orders. They don't go beyond that. They don't determine when and by whom the Constitution has been violated; that power belongs rightly to the courts.* They don't enforce federal laws or court orders; that power belongs to the Department of Justice. What you are describing requires another law entirely, or it requires the President to use the Insurrection Act. Should Obama declare cities across America to be in a state of insurrection because a few protesters made nuisances of themselves and got arrested?

That's not even getting into the fact that AUMF determinations are made by the President, not the military. Or that, outside the context of the AUMF, terrorism is a federal crime, one with which none of these people have been charged. Or that the FBI and other federal LEOs also swear an oath to defend the Constitution, and they have the uncontested authority to arrest terrorists, so they're a much more logical choice for arresting these "terrorists." There are a lot of reasons this is a bad idea, in general--giving it to the military just makes it worse.

* When given an unconstitutional order, it is the duty of every servicemember not to obey it. But it is not their duty to unilaterally declare that some civilians somewhere have violated the Constitution, draw arms, convoy out there, and arrest them.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are

Laws are enforced and executed based on what is written down in the bill, not on what Rand Paul rants about on youtube, nor what the ACLU thinks is written down.

Here is a quick link to the applicable sections of the actual text of the bill that passed the Senate 93-7. Now you have a choice to make:
  • Read it yourself and get the truth about what is in it, denying ignorance in the process, or
  • Ignore the link and listen to what other people want you to think, thus embracing ignorance.

The choice is yours. As for me, I have said what I came into this thread to say. I see no point in arguing with those who refuse to read it for themselves, and have no argument with those who do.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Fair enough. Thank you for the information.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join