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.

 

ACTION ALERT: The U.S. Constitution hangs by its Final thread - Must Read

page: 2
43
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Can someone please explain/summarize WHY Obama would veto this?!?
Didn't it START from his posse?!


what in the BLEEEEP is going onnnnnn!??!?




posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ltinycdancerg
 


oh and I sidenote-
I hate that they cut out the best part of the second clip....

After drinking an absurd amount of generic energy drink (to which he's become addicted), Steve starts doing cartwheels back and forth, in front of the doorway, shouting,
"I'll take care of you mom! I'm a WAGON WHEEEEEL!"

just sayin



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by zzombie
 



The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.


The requirement to detain a person .... so they don't HAVE to detain US citizens but they can.


Clever indeed.

INSIDIOUS really.


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



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   
The House bill is it's own version of the NDAA bill. H.R. 1540 actually PASSED both Senate and House but S. 1867 just passed the Senate over a week ago. We have roughly a week before congress reconciles the bill in a CLOSED DOOR commitee, comprised of only one person who voted against the bill.

Unless this is the newest update: I've never followed a bill so closely to know if it changes names when it is reconciled with another bill.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Obama is a liar so if he says he will veto, he won't.

The congress are bought and paid for, so if this doesn't pass they will keep trying.

The courts are corrupt and won't do anything to stop this.

The states are too afraid of the federal government to grow a backbone.

The cities are taken over by corrupt mayors and the police have been militarized.

We have no foreign allies we can count on to save us, most have helped the federal government Enslave america.

Looks like it's up to we the people once again.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
what if this is all a stunt?

what if this is for obama's reelection? create some bogus bill that scares the crap out of citizens and then obama vetos it and looks like he is for the american people?

not saying i believe this...just a thought...
edit on 12/12/11 by ICEKOHLD because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ICEKOHLD
what if this is all a stunt?

what if this is for obama's reelection? create some bogus bill that scares the crap out of citizens and then obama vetos it and looks like he is for the american people?

not saying i believe this...just a thought...
edit on 12/12/11 by ICEKOHLD because: (no reason given)


The average voter isn't aware of this bill nor would they understand the subtleties of this kind of dynamic. Obama has a better chance of getting elected by showing up to an nfl football game.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by CitizenNum287119327
SO... Under this act, can a U.S. Citizen bring charges of 'Aiding and Financing Al-Queada' against all those in the U.S. Government and C.I.A. who established, trained, and financed Al-Queada?

What about NATO Countries who financed, armed, and aided Al-Queada terrorist's in the coup against the Libyian Govt?

Aren't they all now subject to this Act?


I believe you are correct. The mere act of Obama, Hillary and Ivo being present, allows any US citizen to take them into custody on US soil providing they have absolutely no evidence beyond the heresay. Means they wont travel out of DC much?



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
www.youtube.com... this link here shows he is all for it.in my opinion.eyes wide opend.there was a better link i just cant find it now.my opology.
edit on 12-12-2011 by bumpufirst because: (no reason given)
here is a better link,www.youtube.com...
edit on 12-12-2011 by bumpufirst because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadowalker
 

Unfortunately your wrong. Only the military can detain them, and who controls the military?



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
ok maybe I'm misunderstanding this part but dosen't this section mean that it DOSEN'T apply to us citizens?? please explain because I want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly thanks in advance

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND
LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement
to detain a person in military custody under this sec-
tion does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require-
ment to detain a person in military custody under
this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien
of the United States on the basis of conduct taking
place within the United States, except to the extent
permitted by the Constitution of the United States.




posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by zzombie
 


I wish people would read the damn thing.

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be
construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to
the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident
aliens of the United States or any other persons who are
captured or arrested in the United States.

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND
LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement
to detain a person in military custody under this sec-
tion does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require-
ment to detain a person in military custody under
this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien
of the United States on the basis of conduct taking
place within the United States, except to the extent
permitted by the Constitution of the United States.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Submarines
 


I did read the damn thing thats why I asked the question I did so someone could clearly explain it to me because I'm missing the point, you shouldn't complain about people not understanding what the meaning of it is if you can't explain it, I'm simply trying to understand your point because the way Iunderstand it, is that none of this applies to people here in the states if I;m wrong please explain how I have misread it thats all I'm asking.



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Having just read the whole thing and been from the UK.

You people seem to be in it pretty deep just a bit deeper than us over the pond.

In this section below you will see the sentence "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this sec- tion does not extend to citizens of the United States"

There is

1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this sec- tion does not extend to citizens of the United States. (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require- ment to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.


So with that taken into account I feel that after looking at the evidence presented by the OP that this relates to the good old terrorism act that we have here in the UK but the difference is the US can hold them for how ever long they want too and arrest anybody who they be leave to be a terrorist.

I think there is a bit of scare mongering going on here !
if this bill was passed which I think may be the case unless if you do not fall under the label terrorist you will be ok BUT and that's a big BUT who and what can they define as a terrorist ??


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

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



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by RN311
 


Good question...here you go.

Actually the language that would have protected U.S. Citizens from indefinite detainment
was removed. Watch below video to find out WHO requested this...spine chilling.

Obama will sign NDAA 1031 Citizen Imprisonment Law in a few days




www.youtube.com...=55

The text of Section 1031 reads, "A covered person under this section" includes "any person who has committed a belligerent act". We only have to be ACCUSED...there will be no TRIAL.

- Confusingly, Obama threatened a veto for 1032, but NOT 1031. 1032 is UNRELATED to imprisoning citizens without a trial. He has never suggested using a veto to stop Section 1031 citizen imprisonment -- in fact, it was requested by the Obama administration. Watch the video for proof!

The words, "requirement for military custody" refers to 1032 NOT 1031. We MUST not confuse these two sections. In its statements, the Obama administration has actually contributed to the confusion about 1032's "requirement for military custody", which is COMPLETEY UNRELATED to Section 1031 citizen imprisonment without trial.

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



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by zzombie
 


Most Americans couldn't even tell you five rights granted in the Bill of Rights. Politicians are even worse, they of all people should know the Constitution front to back, and adhere to it as strictly as possible, however they constantly ignore their sworn oath to preserve, protect, and defend it. The Constitution has been being ripped to pieces for years now, and the only ways to restore the rule of law to this country would be to elect Ron Paul, or have a legitimate revolution.

Time is running out though, this thing is on it's way to becoming a reality. Anybody who challenges the corrupt establishment and the New World Order that's in the near future will likely be labeled a threat, and will be put into FEMA camps. The military can take down any militias who talk of revolution, and before we know it any hope of restoring the Constitution to America will be forever lost.
edit on 12-12-2011 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Thanks for posting. Such an important issue, I hope every U.S. citizen that reads this takes the time to call their congressman. I went to mine's website, got a direct line, no waiting, they were polite and so was I.

Star and Flag!



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by RN311
ok maybe I'm misunderstanding this part but dosen't this section mean that it DOSEN'T apply to us citizens?? please explain because I want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly thanks in advance

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND
LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement
to detain a person in military custody under this sec-
tion does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require-
ment to detain a person in military custody under
this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien
of the United States on the basis of conduct taking
place within the United States, except to the extent
permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

This section

UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement
to detain a person in military custody under this sec-
tion does not extend to citizens of the United States.
Is covered by the TSA DHS FBI and LEO's The requirement to detain by the Mil is not required but permitted til the The requirement to detain by the Mil is not required but permitted til the TSA,or DHS,or FBI, or LEO's come and remove the Hostile or Belligerent from custody of the Mil. If you become and or listed as Hostile or Belligerent and or combatant, you give up your Citizenship automatically



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
I covered this S1867 and HR 1540 for some time here is the white house statement from 17 nov 2011 www.abovetopsecret.com... from the link

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
2
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.
the above is from here www.whitehouse.gov... note this is not from Obama, as far as i know he has not made a statement as of yet
edit on 12-12-2011 by bekod because: editting



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
if you just happen to glance at this you should read this

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
2
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.
do you GET IT YET???????!!!!!!!



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join