It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
This is What I Have Been Trying To Tell, But It Seems To Have Fallen On Death Ears you as a US citizen pick up arms against the USA or its Citizens... well read this
Americans not immune if they act against U.S: CIA
just on say so and who is he talking about on now a Known... well do not take my word for it
WASHINGTON — American citizens are not immune from being treated like an enemy if they take up arms against the United States, the CIA general counsel said on Thursday.
CIA General Counsel Stephen Preston was responding to a question at an American Bar Association national security conference about the killing of Americans overseas without presenting evidence of wrongdoing.
and if you think this is bad , wait till S1867 HR1540 pass, here read that again
A CIA drone strike killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born cleric linked to Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, earlier this year.
He was linked to failed plots to blow up a U.S.-bound passenger plane in 2009 and cargo planes headed for the United States in 2010, U.S. officials say.
Preston said he would not discuss Awlaki or any specific operations.
"I will make this observation that citizenship does not confer immunity on one who takes up arms against his own country. It didn't in World War Two when there were American citizens who joined the Nazi army and it doesn't today," Preston said.
Now is this a Hoax?? I think not but then ....
Preston said "I will make this observation that citizenship does not confer immunity on one who takes up arms against his own country. It didn't in World War Two when there were American citizens who joined the Nazi army and it doesn't today,"
Originally posted by The Sword
Lest you forget, our congress-critters and house-dwellers want this.
Obama said he would veto the dangerous parts. We'll hold him to this "promise".
In the meantime, stop blaming everything on him.
Originally posted by bekod
"Now is this a Hoax?? I think not but then ....
Preston said "I will make this observation that citizenship does not confer immunity on one who takes up arms against his own country. It didn't in World War Two when there were American citizens who joined the Nazi army and it doesn't today,..
In one of the most stunning reversals of human rights in modern history the Federal Security Service (FSB) is reporting today that the Obama regime has issued a blunt warning to all American citizens that, in essence, states that any one of these once free people who dare to oppose their government they will be immediately killed and offered no chance to defend themselves before a Court and/or jury of their peers.
have you read the S1867 sub sec d 1031 1032 or the House bill HR 1540?
in essence, states that any one of these once free people who dare to oppose their government they will be immediately killed and offered no chance to defend themselves before a Court and/or jury of their peers.
there is no need for sub sec D 1031 1032 for there is already laws that cover this and making then fall under the Geneva Convention laws and rules of war, where as it stands now you can be executed or detained on hear say. From the FBI or CIA, they say they have intel but then where is the Court of law , a drone? a 50cal m2? holding a rifle carrying a bomb is one thing, going over sea and just being in a hot zone , makes you fair game ?? WHY
Section 1031 attempts to expressly codify the detention authority that exists under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) (the “AUMF”). The authorities granted by the AUMF, including the detention authority, are essential to our ability to protect the American people from the threat posed by al-Qa'ida and its associated forces, and have enabled us to confront the full range of threats this country faces from those organizations and individuals. Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk. After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of
legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country. While the current language minimizes many of those risks, future legislative action must ensure that the codification in statute of express military detention authority does not carry unintended consequences that could compromise our ability to protect the American people.
The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects. This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President's authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals. Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets. We have spent ten years since September 11, 2001, breaking down the walls between intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals; Congress should not now rebuild those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult. Specifically, the provision would limit the flexibility of our national security professionals to choose, based on the evidence and the facts and circumstances of each case, which tool for incapacitating dangerous terrorists best serves our national security interests. The waiver provision fails to address these concerns, particularly in time-sensitive operations in which law enforcement personnel have traditionally played the leading role. These problems are all the more acute because the section defines the category of individuals who would be subject to mandatory military custody by substituting new and untested legislative criteria for the criteria the Executive and Judicial branches are currently using for detention under the AUMF in both habeas litigation and military operations. Such confusion threatens our ability to act swiftly and decisively to capture, detain, and interrogate terrorism suspects, and could disrupt the collection of vital intelligence about threats to the American people.
Rather than fix the fundamental defects of section 1032 or remove it entirely, as the Administration and the chairs of several congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters have advocated, the revised text merely directs the President to develop procedures to ensure the myriad problems that would result from such a requirement do not come to fruition. Requiring the President to devise such procedures concedes the substantial risks created by mandating military custody, without providing an adequate solution. As a result, it is likely that implementing such procedures would inject significant confusion into counterterrorism operations.