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.

 

Amendments in America. What is really going on?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Lately when I've been doing some browsing on ATS, I've been coming across a lot of people ranting about how the US government is "attacking the 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendment, by giving the military the authority to imprison any person, whether American or not, anywhere in the world, for however long they want."

I don't know if this is simply blown way out of proportion, or what, but I do not understand how that statement makes sense.

American authorities do not have jurisdiction outside of.. well, the USA. To say that a group of Marines can "imprison any person, whether American or not, anywhere in the world" rightfully and lawfully is ridiculous. If they came to my house in Europe and knocked down my door, apprehending me without any co-operation from local authorities, I'm pretty sure that would be seen as an act of war.

I may be ignorant. I may have no clue as to what is really happening. But can someone please tell me whether this statement is complete fodder or, if not, how does it even begin to.. be real..?

Thanks in advance
Pete




posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ParaZep
 


US Military has no law enforcement capacity inside the US....Outside the US, they only have battlefield authority. The military is not a law enforcement organization, they are used for strictly one purpose. This is why everyone is throwing their hands up screaming foul. A really good movie reference is Bruce Willis in the The Siege...'Sir, you do not want our military to occupy a US city'....Because it is not trained or designed for that, it is a combat organization designed to occupy hostile territories....If the army showed up at your door, it would be a violation of international law. Now if you happened to live in an area that we have claimed is a battlefield, then everything is thrown out the window...Again, why we are throwing our hands up screaming foul.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
When talking about violating amendments, they are speaking of comitting such acts domestically in the U.S. or against U.S. citizens anywhere in the world. The Constitution allegedly protects U.S. citizens from their own government (that was the original intent anyway).
As far as capturing, killing, detaining foreigners, well... it's either an act of war or the foreign government is allowing it. But that scenario has nothing to do with amendments.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ParaZep
 
yes sadly this true, the Bill in the US is 1867 sub sec d 1031 1032 in sort "if your giving aid or acting in a Hostile and or Belligerent manor towards the US and or its Allies you can be held and detained until the end of the war or the end hostilities, determined by the US GOV" now if this is not WW3 i do not know what is. this link www.abovetopsecret.com... should sum it up for you. feel free to visit my profile I have a lot of post on this S1867


edit on 8-12-2011 by bekod because: editting

edit on 8-12-2011 by bekod because: editting



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by pointr97
reply to post by ParaZep
 

If the army showed up at your door, it would be a violation of international law. Now if you happened to live in an area that we have claimed is a battlefield, then everything is thrown out the window...Again, why we are throwing our hands up screaming foul.


Thanks for the replies. So pointr97, what you are saying is, if the US has claimed a certain area as a battlefield, then the international law is disregarded? Why should any international law be over-ridden on the whim of one state/federation of states? And I'm presuming that if the USA declares a certain area a battlefield without the consent of the governing authority of that area, then they are effectively declaring war? (I'm not interested if the government of this area is letting the US abuse it's citizens, this is a different matter entirely.)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by pointr97
 
When the US is called a Battlefield and it has , then this changes things this link tells how www.presstv.ir... from the link

American rights activists have slammed the US Senate for gearing up to vote on a bill on Monday that would define the whole of the United States as a 'battlefield' and allow the military to arrest American citizens in their own back yard without charge or trial.
this is no joke it is for real the bill passed, is now waiting for votes in the House


The reactions comes after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said last week that “the senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president-and every future president - the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. The power is so broad that even US citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.”
ok so it is the ACLU but the law reads as the law reads


Under the 'worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial' provision of S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which is set to be up for a vote on the Senate floor Monday, the legislation will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield,” said South Carolina's left-wing Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who supports the bill.
you do see the part world wide? here it is if you missed it

Under the 'worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial
yes folks this says the US gov can come get you anywhere anytime in the world with out warrant for "Acts of Hostile or Belligerent manner or giving aid to its enemy's" towards the US or its Allies or the citizens or the US note how they left out citizens of allies



edit on 8-12-2011 by bekod because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
We talking about violating the Posse Comitatus act, it depends if you have a problem with that or not -- I do. The president has promised to veto it - I hope he does.

en.wikipedia.org...

Sec. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress ; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section and any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment[8]

edit on 8-12-2011 by spyder550 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ParaZep
 
You got me thinking just how selfish we in the US have become, I have made dozens of post denouncing this bill 1867 and how it will effect us in the US , my apologies for leaving the rest of the world out it, for it does effect the whole world list it as a battlefield so yes for the first time in writing Bill 1867 says the world is now a Battlefield. WW3 is here folks.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by spyder550
 
You missed the big picture , you are right it does , and it is not constitutional but then this is the US senate when have they read the US Constitution and meant it they passed the Pact that through the Constitution in to the waist bin , the real sad part is if Obama does Veto , [in which case he will be deemed Un VET Un Mil and Un Corp] the Congress will have the Votes to make it law any way for they can over ride his veto, so we in the World are under dictator ship. ZIG BUSH is not funny anymore for it has now become fact.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ParaZep
 
here is the law as written in the Bill 1867 www.abovetopsecret.com... i hope you do read it.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ParaZep
 


Oh yes they can, if you are seen giving aid in any form or fashion to a person deemed as a terrorist under this new bill they can definately detain you or even kill you as a enemy comnbatant and that goes for american citizens too.

This bill is more or less aimed directly at the american people as an attempt to thwart "home grown terrorism" and makes the United States itself a part of the battlefield. Under this bill it authroizes the military to do all of the above without consent and it nullifies the due process system and it makes the head of the military (the president) Judge, Jury and Executioner. Under this bill you have no rights at all. This bill is the first major step towards martial law, which will come next and come soon. This is what it looks like when a totalitarian government begins to take power and assert its tyrannical grip on not just it's own people, but the entire world as well. that One World Government everyone is so scared of the Anti-Christ instituting? It's just about here and this "war on terrorism" is ushering it in. This is how "He" gets a foothold.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by spyder550
We talking about violating the Posse Comitatus act, it depends if you have a problem with that or not -- I do. The president has promised to veto it - I hope he does.



I'd have to find it, but I'm fairly certain that 1 of GW Bush's executive orders has already effectively overturned Posse Comitatus. And Obama has continued that order.

The Obama administration's veto comes not from a concern for citizens' civil liberties, but because the law is too weak. It would hold the federal government to the Geneva convention standards for prisoners of war since the US is considered a new "battlefield". Obama has already showed a disinterest in upholding the Bill of Rights. Why would he start now?



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by ParaZep
 


Oh yes they can, if you are seen giving aid in any form or fashion to a person deemed as a terrorist under this new bill they can definately detain you or even kill you as a enemy comnbatant and that goes for american citizens too.

This bill is more or less aimed directly at the american people as an attempt to thwart "home grown terrorism" and makes the United States itself a part of the battlefield. Under this bill it authroizes the military to do all of the above without consent and it nullifies the due process system and it makes the head of the military (the president) Judge, Jury and Executioner. Under this bill you have no rights at all. This bill is the first major step towards martial law, which will come next and come soon. This is what it looks like when a totalitarian government begins to take power and assert its tyrannical grip on not just it's own people, but the entire world as well. that One World Government everyone is so scared of the Anti-Christ instituting? It's just about here and this "war on terrorism" is ushering it in. This is how "He" gets a foothold.



The gov definitely views its own citizens as a threat. Interestingly, this comes in the wake of violent OWS protests.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join