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.

 

This is what Bill S.1867 is about

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 05:55 AM
link   
found this video, dated december 4, 2011. you can clearly see some soldiers throwing some kid in a fairly unmarked sedan and drive off...

WARNING....THEY DROP THE F BOMB HANDFUL OF TIMES.


edit on 12/8/11 by ICEKOHLD because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ICEKOHLD
 


i hope someone proves this video a fake or can find out what "really" happened" cuz i would hate to think this is real...but it sure looks real to me???



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ICEKOHLD
 


No idea about the video.

But you and many others have it wrong about the bill.

Every year a bill is voted upon which set out the defense budget and plan for the next 12 months.

The part about indefinitely holding US citizens was voted down.

www.abovetopsecret.com...




edit on 8/12/11 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


ok...while i'm still up in the air about this (cuz i've seen soooo much conflicting news about it)...i have noticed that you tend to bring some truth so i'm gonna go with you on this chad and not get all paranoid and what not. this video could very well have been taken out of context. who knows?



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by ICEKOHLD
 


No idea about the video.

But you and many others have it wrong about the bill.

Every year a bill is voted upon which set out the defense budget and plan for the next 12 months.

The part about indefinitely holding US citizens was voted down.

www.abovetopsecret.com...




edit on 8/12/11 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)


No, you have it wrong in both posts. Senator Udall's amendment, that was voted down, was to change/remove the language of the sections of the bill that allowed the indefinite detention of American citizens without due process, not to add it in. After Senator Pauls attempt to remove the language the bill went back to committee, it has since gone to the House, meanwhile we haven't seen the revisions (if any).



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


That's not how I read it.

He proposed to add this to the bill:



SA 1112. Mr. UDALL of Colorado submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill 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; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of section 1031, add the following:

(f) Extension to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens.--The authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons under this section extends to citizens of the United States and lawful resident aliens of the United States, except to the extent prohibited by the Constitution of the United States.


SOURCE

Of course, US citizens are still protected by the constitution...which is the bottom line here I believe.



edit on 8/12/11 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   
I can tell you it is either old or foreign. For one, the US Military doesn't use the older design on their cammies, being replaced by that digital pattern. Second, black boots have been replaced with suede.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


It is confusing, but what has come to light whether it was in previous years bills or not is the fact that American citizens are not protected by the Constitution despite that the bill claims it is so. Any citizen can be labled an enemy combatant, should the Executive Branch decide so. The Constitution does not protect enemy combatants, the definition of enemy combatant seems to keep getting broader.

In Sen Lindsey Grahams own words




top topics



 
5

log in

join